The prohibition crusade in Arizona

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Tisdale, Nancy Kay, 1942-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 03/10/2021 21:19:27

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551788 THE PROHIBITION CRUSADE IN ARIZONA

by Nancy K. Tisdale

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 6 5 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial ful­ fillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED: 7

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

T JOHN ALEXANDER CARROLL Date Professor of History PREFACE

In the eyes of the rest of the nation, Arizona in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was a socially backward wilderness dangling on the periphery of c iv ili­ zation. The territory, arid and sparsely settled, was commonly appraised as a land bereft of civilizing influen­ ces and hopelessly barren of culture. Yet in the late 1870’s and early 1880’s little whirlwinds of reform senti­ ment were already evident. A few citizens, alarmed by the relaxed moral atmosphere of the territory, were stimulated by nationwide reformist trends and set out to rectify some of the basic social ills of Arizona. These few people were the founders of the temperance crusade in Arizona. Very early in the campaign for social improvements, the saloon was singled out as a particularly dangerous and debilitating institution. Whiskey and gambling, the reformers preached, were at the root of moral degradation. The single theme - the betterment of society by the destruction of the liquor traffic - was at the heart of Arizona's reform crusade. These long-standing "social evils" of the saloon were curbed by reformers only after years of agitation, arduous struggle, and bitter humiliation. Shortly after Arizona achieved statehood, however, the dreams of the crusaders were realized with the initiation i i i iv of a woman suffrage amendment in 1912 and with the enactment of statewide prohibition late in 1914. Five years before national prohibition, Arizona had hammered shut the doors of its saloons. The author wishes to express her gratitude to the faculty of the Department of History at the University of Arizona for counsel and encouragement during the pursuit of graduate studies. She is indebted to the staff members of the Arizona Pioneers* Historical Society, the Arizona State Library and Archives and the Sharlott Hall Museum for their cooperation in making research material available; and to Bert Fireman not only for materials but also for many valuable suggestions drawn from his fund of knowledge. Deep appreciation is likewise extended to Frank and Gail Patania, Lawrence R. Murphy and Alison Freeman for th e ir u n fa ilin g a ssista n ce and encouragement. The author is especially indebted to Dr. John Alexander Carroll who gave an incredible amount of time to stylistic revisions and who made the drudgery of rewriting endurable. Without his steady pressure and creative criticisms this thesis would still be in rough draft form. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE...... i l l

Chapter I . THE RISE OF TEMPERANCE SENTIMENT IN ARIZONA...... 1 I I . LAVENDER AND NEW LACE IN THE N IN ETIES..... 29 I I I . OPENING SHOTS OF THE SHOWDOWN...... 61 IV. A TERRITORIAL CROSSFIRE...... 90 V. BALLOTS MEAN BULLETS IN THE WAR AGAINST WHISKEY...... 126 VI. THE DEMISE OF DEMON RUM IN ARIZONA...... 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 173

V ABSTRACT The decade of the 1880's witnessed the birth of temperance sentiment in Arizona. Territorial crusaders, stimulated by national trends, banded together and formed effective pressure groups. These organizations eventually achieved the recognition and support of the lawmakers. During the next decade reformers polished their techniques and synthesized their goals. Although their achievements were palliatives rather than reforms, the crusaders gained a rising conviction of the worth of their cause. In 1901 the first territorial local option law was passed. The temperance agitators now had a legal weapon, though a crude one, with which to battle the liquor interests. The drive for woman suffrage took on increased momentum in Arizona after the turn of the century, and at each session of the territorial legislature the lawmakers were confronted with pleas for equal rights. In 1909 the original local option law was amended so that only a simple majority was required to effect prohibition. Under this new law, many political subdivisions of the territory went dry. In 1912 Arizona became the "Baby State" of the Union; its constitution was a progressive document embodying the initiative, referendum and r e c a ll. In th at year an equal su ffra g e amendment was initiated by the well-organized women's groups in the state The cause had widespread support, the campaign was ably con ducted, and with little difficulty the women of Arizona

v i v i i obtained the ballot. In 1914 the unified prohibitionists launched an all-out attack on the liquor interests by initiating a highly controversial amendment which called for statewide prohibition. Because the time was ripe for such reform and because their campaign was especially effective, the drys were victorious in 1914. Statewide prohibition thus became law in Arizona on January 1, 1915. CHAPTER I

THE RISE OF TEMPERANCE SENTIMENT IN ARIZONA

Late in the evening of December 31, 1914, thou­ sands of Arizonans gathered in streets, alleys, saloons, clubs and churches to honor the passing of a venerable and enigmatic institution - whiskey. For some, this was a night for mourning - an old and dear frien d had been c r u e lly exiled and was preparing to say goodbye. For others, it was a time for prayerful rejoicing - a great evil had been overpowered and a new age of Purity and Goodness was at hand. Whatever one's feelings on the matter, prohibition had come to Arizona. In Tucson on that New Year's Eve, the inter­ section of Congress and Stone was the scene of last-minute merriment. People shouted and sang songs on the sidewalks, automobile horns honked, revolvers cracked, whistles blew, and drinkers wandered about waving bottles and loudly cursing "that damned white-ribboned scourge."^ On a street corner in Prescott an irate, red-faced man blustered inco­ herently while his white-ribboned wife, in the presnce of a police officer, smashed bottle after bottle of her husband's

^The distinctive badge of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was the white ribbon symbolizing purity and civic righteousness - two qualities highly revered by the la­ dy reformers. (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star. January 1, 1915. 1 2 2 hoarded whiskey. In churches all over the state, vigils were held and reverent words of thanksgiving were raised for the long-awaited triumph. In clubs and saloons bartenders practiced mixing "Prohibition Highballs" of grape juice and seltzer. Shortly after midnight, saloon­ keepers in every c it y and town locked th e ir doors and hung out a sign reading: "Closed. Our business and our right to ♦ earn a living has been destroyed by a crowd of important K agitators." John Barleycorn was dead; Demon Rum had been defeated; the Royal Arch had been torn down; and the new year ushered in a new era of righteousness in Arizona.^ The spirit of prohibition which ultimately engulfed Arizona had its seedbeds in the nationwide reform movements of the nineteenth century. By enacting a statewide prohibi­ tion law in 1847, Maine had become the first state to issue a formal declaration of war on saloons. Before this, the temperance movement had been l i t t l e more than a s p ir itu a l

O Interview with Lucile Cummings, Prescott pioneer, in Phoenix on March 28, 1964. ^Tucson Citizen. January 1, 1915. 4"Royal Arch" was a term commonly used to mean liquor d ealers and salesm en. In some p arts o f the country the Royal Arch was a highly organized pressure group. Usually, however, the term designated only those connected with the liquor traffic. "John Barleycorn" and "Demon Rum" were common expressions of.the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and were used to signify liquor of any kind. 3 crusade dedicated to improving society by curtailing drunkenness and associated vices. The enactment of the Maine law signalled the passing of moral suasion and heralded the coming of legal coercion. By 1350 thirteen states had followed Maine's example and adopted prohibition laws. Within a few years, however, the initial fervor died down, and by 1863 eig h t s ta te s had repealed th e ir p ro h ib i­ tion laws. Anti-saloon sentiment obviously could not sustain itself without a lobby. A strong nationwide organization would be needed to weld sentiments and get an e f f e c t iv e movement underway.^ By the end o f the C iv il War, American reformers were thoroughly initiated in the inner workings of the political system of their country; crusaders had learned th at they could best make th e ir causes known in Washington and across the nation by banding together in pressure groups. In 1869 the advocates of temperance organized the Prohibition Party with the single objective of outlawing the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors.^ Unlike their husbands, however, the women in the

^Charles Merz, The Dry Decade (New York, 1931), p. 3. ^Ibid., p. 29V Although The Dry Decade is primarily a legislative history of prohibition after the passage of the n a tio n a l p ro h ib itio n amendment, the opening chapter i s a clear, concise summary of the temperance movement. Herbert As bury, in The Great Illusion (New York, 1950), traces prohibition, from its colonial beginnings. The Origins of Prohibition by John A. Krout (New York, 1925), is the most detailed, documented.account of the birth of temperance reform, but the work ends with the year 1851. Joseph Gusfield's Symbolic Crusade (Chicago, 1963), presents a s ig n ific a n t new approach to the su b ject. 4 temperance movement were not s a t is f ie d w ith the P ro h ib itio n Party. Politically impotent in the nineteenth century, they could play no effective role in a national party and, th erefo re, demanded a pressure group o f th e ir own. Their demands culm inated in the estab lish m en t o f th e Woman's Christian Temperance Union in 1872. The Union was imme­ diately successful and rapidly extended its organization throughout the country. Special attention was given to territorial outposts where fervor ran high for social 7 reform. Arizona was a prime target for its propaganda. In the eyes of the rest of the nation, the Far South­ west in the late nineteenth century was a socially backward wilderness dangling on the periphery of civilization. According to the Eastern press, the distinguishing features of the Territory of Arizona were its Indian depredations and a cts o f v io le n c e on the part o f w hite men. Although Arizona was indeed no haven of tranquility, neither was it a land of criminals as often portrayed. The pioneering men of Arizona were a hardy breed who faced the problems of existence in the arid, sparsely settled territory with the rough manners that the physical characteristics of the region demanded. In the years immediately following the establish­ ment of territorial government in 1864, there were few 7

7 Ernest Grant, "The Liquor Traffic Before the Eight­ eenth Amendment," in Prohibition: A National Experiment, James Bassard and Thorstein Sellin.(eds.), the Annals of the American Academy of P olitical and Social Science (Philadelphia, 1931), CLXIII, p. 31. o newspapers, schools, churches, or fraternal societies. Polite dinner parties were infrequent, stimulating discus­ sion hard to find. When men in Arizona longed for fellow­ ship and conversation, they found it most easily at their q only club - the everpresent saloon. Liquor was synonomous with hospitality; when a celebration was called for, the saloon became the banquet hall where the guests feasted on a flowing alcoholic spread. Early in the history of the te r r ito r y , th erefo re, the saloon became the s o c ia l center for Arizona’s robust pioneers - and liquor became one of the necessities of life. Whenever a new settlem en t sprang in to e x iste n c e , the itin e r a n t John Barleycorn found a new home. Every town in Arizona boasted at least one roaring saloon, if not an e n tir e row o f them, and v is it o r s to the te r r ito r y quickly reached the conclusion that the liquor traffic was certainly its most flourishing and most lucrative enter- prise. Early descriptions of Arizona abound with recollections of two favorite pastimes - drinking and O °Louis C. Hughes, State of Arizona: Infant Common­ wealth of the Republic, p. 15. Copy available at the Arizona State Library and Archives. 9Reminiscences of Wm. Grafin, Biographical File, Arizona Pioneers' Historical Society, hereinafter abbreviated APHS. . James H. McClintock, Lecture given at Congre­ gational lv3en's Club, June 1, 1931, (11 Arizona Liquor and Prohibition" file ), . McClintock Collection, Phoenix Public Library. . 6 gambling. One early resident described Tucson as having more saloons than all the other places of business put together.D rinking establishments in Prescott were too numerous to be effectively patronized by that town’s 300 inhabitants. Montezuma Street, one of the main arteries, was dubbed "Whiskey Row" because o f the conspicuous absence of other enterprises there. ^ An entire section of First Street in Phoenix was paved with empty beer bottles planted neck down in the ground, mate testimony to the lusty 13 drinking habits of its citizenry. The preponderance of saloons all across the territory was clear evidence that drink was a common denominator for sociability among men of all stations in life. The cowboy, the miner, the business­ man, shopkeeper, and the professional man flocked to the common watering place and participated in the democratic deed of sharing the bar and the bottle with his fellow p io n eers. If liquor had an indelible influence on the social customs of Arizona pioneers, so also did Dame Fortune. Present in almost every saloon, games of chance attracted men who sought excitement and quick profit. Like drinking, gambling was a custom so commonplace that most men escaped 11

11File of Elias Hedrick, APHS. "^Joseph Miller (ed.), Arizona Cavalcade. The Tur­ bulent Times (New York, 1962), p. 105. 13Arizona Daily Star. August 3, 1911. 7 the traps of over-indulgence. ^ Yet both drinking and gambling were decried by a strictly moral minority who appraised the twin habits as a manifestation of decadence. These few reformers quietly plotted to detrone both Demon Rum and Dame Fortune in Arizona. Although drinking was an ubiquitous institution in Arizona, the quantity of alcoholic beverages manufactured within the territory remained far below that of the other territories in the "W est.Throughout early history, Arizona never had a legitimate or licensed distillery. There were, of course, illic it stills in remote areas, especially around Tucson, and county officers were kept busy attempting to break up rings of "moonshiners" who hoped to avoid paying the territorial license fees.^ Breweries, on the other hand, were common in the territory. By 1871 there were five operating in Prescott, Wickenburg, and Tucson. Eight years later Phoenix was distinguished as the home of the red-brick Arcade Brewery, the largest in the territory. Its owners, C. A. Luke and J. Thalheimer, supplied the beer drinkers of Phoenix with one hundred gallons daily. In 1880 the Indian scout A1 Seiber

^R em iniscences o f Hose Drachman, APRS, p . 20. ^ S ta n le y Baron, Brewed in America (B oston, 1962), p. 252. This book contains an excellent chapter which deals strictly with brewing in the western territories. 3-6Tncson Citizen. April 19, 1879. 8 capitalized on the thirst of miners in Bisbee and built an adobe brewery in a gulch outside of town. His location ultimately gave rise to the name "Brewery Gulch" for one of Bisbee*s streets. Seiber’s brewery, like most others in Arizona, was forced to suspend operations in the 1890*s when th e ra ilro a d s brought b etter and cheaper beer from the E ast. Initially, the only regulation of the liquor traffic and gambling business was by taxation. The rates on such licenses were so low, however, that there could be no hope for effective control by this means. The original terri­ torial code on liquor licenses stipulated that retail dealers must pay twenty dollars quarterly if their sales averaged $20,000 or more per year, and eight dollars if the sales were less than $20,000. Saloon or restaurant keepers who sold alcohol in quantities of less than one quart were required to pay an additional quarterly tax of th ir ty d o lla r s . L icenses for a l l games o f chance were set at twenty-five dollars a month per table; this, though a stiff fee for the times, was a mere drop in the bucket compared to the money which passed over any table in the course of a month.^ When the legislature passed a law *19

l^Baron, Brewed in America, pp. 254-255. "^Coles Bashford, Compiled Laws of the Territory of Arizona 1864-71 (Albany, 187l), p. 52b, 19Ibid.. p. 518. 9 allotting one-half of the proceeds from gambling licenses to public schools in 1879, many moral-minded citizens were repulsed by the thought that their children were being 20 educated with tainted money. Although a few early reformers continually called for increased fees on all liquor and gambling licenses, the rates remained unaltered. Drinking and gaming appeared to be impregnably entrenched in the social scheme of Arizona. But, as the territory began to grow and receive the civilizing influence of churches and schools, more dissident souls courageously voiced their opposition to the saloon. They refused to look on drinking and gambling as time-honored social customs, but rather viewed them as debilitating vices which should be totally oblitered. At first such opposition was a mere whisper in the wilderness, but in 1874 Governor Anson P. K. Safford^ gave reformers a mighty assist by declaring that nine-tenths of the crime could be charged to "ardent sp irits.11 No greater ill than liquor could afflict the human family, he said, and every man

20^Frank C. Lockwood, Pioneer Davs in Arizona (New York, 1932), p. 247. 21 Anson P. K. Safford of Nevada became governor of Arizona in April, 1869, on appointment by President Grant. Safford immediately involved himself in the Indian affairs which were plaguing the territory. One of his main interests however, was the development of an education system for the territory. During his eight years as governor he waged a fierce educational crusade and finally succeeded in getting free public schools. Judith Ellen Tobias, "Governor Safford and Education in Arizona, 1869-1877," University of Arizona seminar paper (Autumn 1964), on f i l e . a t APRS. 10 and woman should discountenance the use of a lcoh ol.2% Safford's preachments were persuasive, and many citizens hypnotized themselves into believing that the panacea for the ills of the territory was the prohibition of intoxi­ cating beverages. Shutting saloons would close the Pandora's Box of all social evils. The decade of the 1880's saw a steady rise in oq temperance sentiments throughout Arizona. Discontented citizens came to believe that saloon-keepers and gamblers wielded excessive influence in governmental affairs. Most politicians, they concluded, were dependent upon such shady characters for their support.^ Such suspicions were firmly grounded. Astute candidates quickly discovered that the saloon was a universally effective campaign tool - one with far more impact upon voters than campaign buttons or slogans. They recognized that the voter’s attention

22 James H. MoClintock, Arizona, the Youngest State (Chicago, 1916),. II, p. 384.

O O * * ^The temperance crusade is often viewed as a move­ ment dedicated specifically to the abolition of the liquor traffic. This impression is erroneous because it does not take into account the basic difference between "temperance" and "prohibition." The former meant moderation, but the latter could tolerate nothing short of total abstinence. The major o b je c tiv e o f the p ro h ib itio n movement was the legal abolition of the liquor traffic. The temperance move­ ment, however, was concerned with a number of social problems, some of which were not connected with the liquor traffic. As elsewhere, temperance crusaders in Arizona campaigned for a wide program of reforms. ^ R em iniscenses o f Mose Drachman, p. 15. 11 might be more readily secured at the bar with a stiff shot of whiskey than by their loudest voices on the stump. Although it was a costly approach for candidates, it was a most effective one. One of the candidates in Tucson opened a saloon on bhyer Street and hired his own bartender. In this way he beat the system and retrieved most of his money. The technique of uniting whiskey with politics was carried to extremes on some o cca sio n s. Before the Australian ballot system went into effect in Arizona, Democrats in Tucson had an extraordinary vote-getting scheme. On election eve they rented a large corral in the center of town, and to induce voters to drop by they supplied it with quantities of liquor. Once the unsuspecting crowds were crammed inside, the corral gates were locked for the night and the campaign speeches began. The next morning, just as the polls opened, the hostages were given a sobering cup of coffee and marched off to vote. One year the Republicans bettered their opponents by digging a tunnel under an adobe wall and helping the corralled voters to escape. They all got but and voted a Republican ticket, or so the story goes.^ Whatever the extent of saloon politics may have

25Ibid.. p. 78. Z^Ibid. . p. 77. 12 been, the practice rankled the sensitivities of an increasing number of Arizona citizens who were determined to lessen or to end the dominance of the accursed liquor in te r e s ts . The first organization to announce its intent to slay Demon Rum was the Arizona Order of Good Templars, instituted with twelve charter members in Phoenix during 27 the spring of 1878. The parent organization, the Inter­ national Order of Good Templars, founded in 1851 in New York as a secret fraternal benevolent society, preached total abstinence and opened its membership to all persons without 28 regard to race or sex. Across the nation the order was strong, but in Arizona it lacked aggressive leadership and well-defined tactics. The territorial chapter emphasized the no-liquor policy, urged its members to preach abstinence principles to others, and conducted secret, mystical cere­ monies designed to strengthen the w ill power of its members. Although the sphere of influence of the Good Templars was limited, it set one significant precedent by opening its ranks to the feminine task force. This attracted women to

27 Arizona Daily Star. January 23, 1903. 28 ' In 1902 the name of the national organization was changed to the Independent Order of Good Templars. For a co n cise d escrip tio n o f the work o f the Good Templars nationally, see Ernest Hurst Cherrington* s Standard Ency­ clopedia of the Alcohol- Problem (W esterville, Ohio, 1925), I I I , p. 1332. 13 the temperance cause and began to prepare them for the mighty struggles ahead. The year 1883 was of signal Importance for the cause of temperance in Arizona. Seeking new frontiers in which to work, the WCTU commissioned its organizing genius, Frances Willard, to begin an intensive "western round-up." Early in her long career as a temperance leader, Miss Willard had become famous for her success at inplanting local unions in areas previously untouched by temperance agitation. She capitalized on the dual themes of foremost concern to n in eteen th century American womanhood, home and OQ church. The driving appeal, "For God and Home and Native Land," coupled with the Union’s streamlined

^Frances Willard was unquestionably the leading temperance advocate of the nineteenth century and most dominant person in the history of the WCTU. At the time of her visit to Arizona, in 1883, she was president of the national organization. Her tour in that year was not con­ fined to the western part of the country; she managed to v i s i t every s ta te and te r r ito r y to commemorate the 1873 temperance crusade. Mary Earhart, Frances Willard. From Prayers to Politics (Chicago, 1944), p. 181. This book is an exceptionally objective biography of Miss Willard because the author has attempted to separate myth and facts. The life of Frances Willard has been charted by a number of authors, but most works are s t r i c t l y laudatory and marked by cloying sweetness. The myth of Frances Willard grew up after Anna A. Gordon, a fellow temperance worker, published a biography, the Life of Frances Willard (Evanston, 1912), which discussed the reformer in the white light of sainthood, A number of hero-wxDrshipping accounts followed the Gordon book. Earhart’s book, therefore, is outstanding because of its sober, sophisticated approach; it is also a good source for a history of the WCTU. 1 4 m ilitaristic organization, were major factors in the successful extension of the WCTU.^O Frances Willard arrived in Tucson late in March of 1883^1 and quickly enlisted the aid of her friend Josephine 32 Brawley Hughes. Mrs. Hughes was the prototype o f the crusader; she was determined, aggressive, strong-willed, and Puritanical. Because she was married to a pugnacious reform er, Louis C. Hughes,^3 she was especially fitted to

3oIb jd . . p. 195. 3^-In Arizona. The Youngest State. II, McClintock states that Miss Willard visited the territory in 1884. Contemporary accounts of her Tucson visit are proof to the fact that she toured Arizona the year before. See Arizona Daily Star. March 27, 1883. ^Josephine Brawley Hughes was born in 1838 on a small farm near Maadville, Pennsylvania. After attending Edinboro Normal School she married Louis C. Hughes, a young lawyer in 1868. Four years later they traveled to Arizona and immediately began asserting themselves in the area of reform. Mcs. Hughes was a life-long Methodist and labored in behalf of that organization in the territory. She had long been interested in the cause of temperance, and after Miss Willard's visit was a gliding light in the local unions. Josephine Hughes may have known Frances Willard in Pennsylvania where her family had been politically prominent. At any rate, when Miss Willard arrived in the territory the two became an effective team. The long career of Josephine Brawley Hughes ended in 1926 when she died at th e age o f 88. In that year a tablet was placed in the rotunda of the capitol proclaiming her the "Mother of Arizona." J. Conners, Who's Who in Arizona (Tucson, 1913), pp. 602-604; and Mary H. Abbott, "Josephine-B. Hughes, Mother of Arizona," University of Arizona seminar paper (Autumn, 1963),on f i l e at APHS. 33 One o f ten ch ild ren , Louis Hughes was born in Pennsylvania in 1842 of Welch immigrants. Orphaned at ten, he became an indentured farm laborer; but with fierce determ ination he went on to serve in the Union army, .work on a newspaper, and study law under John R. Brawley, the father of his future wife. Ill health forced him to come 1 5 her iconoclastic role. Hughes and his wife came to Arizona in the untamed era of the early seventies and together began the work of bringing civilization to the territory. In February 1873, Mrs. Hughes opened the first public school for girls in Arizona and five years later was instrumental in organizing a Methodist church in Tucson. In 1878 her husband became publisher of the Arizona Daily S tar. Assured of the influence of this newspaper and that o f Mrs. Hughes and her church frien d s, Frances W illard had an effective wedge with which to open the Arizona temperance crusade. In Tucson she offered a series of eloquent lec­ tures which, notwithstanding her national prestige, were poorly attended. Yet by the end of her visit Miss Willard had inspired a few temperance-minded women to organize a lo c a l WCTU chapter.With her Tucson nsuccess” behind her, Miss Willard shuttled across the territory in coup any with Mrs. Hughes. Together they denounced Demon Rum,

to Arizona. Once in the territory,. hsimmediately became involved in politics. He served a short time as attorney general, but soon left to become editor of the Arizona Daily Star. Hughes was destined to hold many political p o s itio n s in the te r r ito r y and to become a most outspoken advocate of reform. Who1s Who in Arizona, pp. 358-364; Diane D. Dysthe, "Louis C. Hughes of Arizona: Territorial Governor, 1893-1896,” seminar paper. University of Arizona (Autumn, 1964), on file at APRS. ^Abbott, "Josephine Hughes, Mother of Arizona," pp.6 ,8 . ^ Arizona Daily Star. March 27, 1883. 1 6 administered the abstinence oath, and pinned on white ribbons. They encouraged men as well as women to educate the young in temperance and to reform the drinkers. With the successful establishment of the WCTU, temperance campaigning broke into a gallop. The whirlwind of reform which Frances Willard loosed on the territory continued to invigorate reform elements long after the great lady had left the territory. The in fa n t WCTU f i r s t convened on a cold November day in 1883 37 at the Prescott Congregational Church. Although Hiss Willard had gone to search for converts elsewhere, she retained a special interest in the Arizona union and sent Mary F. Shields, president of the Colorado WCTU, as her personal representative. Territorial membership was still y limited and few unions were in full operation, and therefore the principal contribution of Miss Shields was to acquaint the newly initiated members with the policies and platforms of the national WCTU and to inspire confidence in the temperance enterprise. Not until the following year did it become apparent that the WCTU had caught on in Arizona. Then temperance- minded Phoenicians, spurred to action by Mrs. Clendenning of

Arizona Daily Star. March 30, 1883.

37 - Lilian Crandell, "Crusaders Then and Now," a speech given at Glendale to.the WCTU State Convention, October 30, 1964, WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. 17 Prescott, determined to do something about the thirty- three saloons in the town of only 3,000. The crusade opened at a May Day festival in the flower-bedecked First Baptist Church. Prominent citizens filled the meeting hall, cheered the opening speech of Josephine Hughes and enthusiastically greeted the new NCTU chapter. The Phoenix union was active from the outset. One month after the i n i t i a l m eeting, a room in an o ld adobe b u ild in g at the corner of Central and Monroe was rented, and a public read­ ing room opened. Hopefully WCTU members waited for Phoenix citizens to visit their reading room, learn the evils of liquor, and ultimately sign the pledge book. The enterprise was a success. Monthly attendance averaged 219; scores of Phoenix residents were induced to pledge themselves to 39 temperance principles. Activities in Tucson in 1884 also gave evidence of the strong roots put down by the fledgling I7CTU in the territory. February saw the town in the midst of a

^Mrs. Clendenning was the wife of an Army Colonel stationed at Ft. Whipple, Arizona. She was a spirited temperance reformer who directed the organization of the Prescott union, one of the first in the territory. McClintock, II, p. 384. ^^"Crusaders Then and How." Because lib r a r ie s were scarce in the territory, reading rooms were the popular substitute. These were furnished with out-of-town news­ papers, magazines, books, and stacks of temperance propaganda The establishm ent o f reading rooms became one o f the most popular WCTU activities. 1 8 temperance orientation program conducted under the auspices of the WCTU. An active temperance campaigner from Iowa, the Reverend J. W. Robinson, and several other ministers were commissioned by the Tucson union to conduct a mass meeting to inspire men and women to take up the temperance banner. The ladies campaigned feverishly for the support of Christian forces in the battle against the forces of darkness, and they seemed confident that victory would eventually crown their e f f o r t s . The first Tucson temper­ ance meeting proved entirely successful; it enkindled the interest of dozens of persons who signed the abstinence oath and took up arms with the forces of the WCTU. Through­ out the rest of the year anti-liquor sentiments ran high in Tucson. By April, Hughes observed in his editorial page that Tucson was witnessing a "temperance boom'.1^ The fo llow in g month another WCTU-sponsored r a lly earned the support of all clergy of the town.^ By the end of 1884 Tucson had become the hotbed of opposition to the liquor traffic for the entire territory. After their second annual convention, held at Phoenix in 1884, the ladies of the WCTU were eager for front­ line combat. Earlier they had held staid teas, sponsored

^ Arizona Daily Star. February 26, 1884. 4LIb ii., April 23, 1884. 42ibid.. Hay 6, 1884. 19 lectures, conducted rallies and mass meetings, and memorized all the basic arguments* Now they were ready to aim their attack on one area of reform. The lady agitators resolved to pressure the forthcoming legislature to pass a b ill prohibiting the sale of liquor on election days. They optim istically believed that such legislation would encourage clean er and more upright v o tin g .^3 The WCTU appealed directly to the legislature and thus made its first en­ trance into the political arena. The thirteenth territorial legislature which convened in Prescott in the winter of 1885 was in the mood for reform. With no prompting from the temperance factions, the legislators passed a law barring minors - those under the age of 16 - from saloons.When the novice WCTU lobbyists barraged the legislature with petitions and pleadings, the lawmakers lent a sympathetic ear to their cause. An act prohibiting the sale of liquor on election days - and providing fines for violations - was passed with virtually no opposition.^5 When the legislature went a step further and enacted a law to punish bribery and corrupt practices at elections, the ladies of the WCTU credited

43Annual Report of the WCTU. 1884. WCTU Home, Phoenix. 44Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Legis­ lature of the Territory of Arizona. 1885. p. 213.. 43Ibid., pp. 56-57. 20 themselves with initiating this reform.^ WCTU members were fully convinced by this time that the master method for reform hinged on proper control of the legislature. Inspired by their initial success,^ the delegates to the third annual WSTU convention in 1887 charted a full program to advance temperance. A legislative committee was created to visit the territorial legislature and urge the passage of three more acts. One would fix the age of consent at sixteen years; another would abolish gambling, and a third would legislate strict observance of the Sabbath.^8 Although the delegates concentrated their atten­ tion on working out an effective legislative program, they were shrewd enough to realize that they must keep the internal organization of the unions in good working condi­ tion or lose ground. To combat such local disintegration, the conventioners voted to require local circles to meet at least once monthly. Then, in order that the union's sphere

46Ibid., P. 82. ^Mrs. Hughes, corresponding secretary of the WCTU, addressed the convention regarding the 1885 legislation. "This is the work of Christian women in Arizona," she declared, "and is only another evidence that woman is one, if not the most important factor in crushing out evil and encouraging and leading reformatory movements for the bene­ fit of humanity. . . . The seeds of temperance, now planted and watered with the earnest tears of good women, w ill germinate and grow into the mighty forests of truth which w ill cover the entire territory under the protecting branches of which those yet unborn w ill find shelter and protection from the archdemon o f man." Annual Report o f the WCTU. 1887. WCTU Home, Phoenix. 48Ib id . 21 of influence might be extended, they resolved to secure the cooperation of all the ministers of the territory. Finally the convention organized the territorial union along strict m ilitaristic lines with six basic departments: Evangelistic, Social, Legislative, Prevention, and Organization.^ When the meeting adjourned, the inspired ladies marched back to their home towns to organize the local regiments. The next path which the Arizona temperance coalition sought out was the well-traveled road of 11 high license." This device had long been used across the United States as a method of regulating the liquor traffic and thereby mitigating its evils. If the price for liquor licenses were high enough, the temperance advocates theorized, few people would be able to set up saloon operations; moreover, only men of high integrity would be able to go into the liquor business. High license would also raise the price o f liq u o r and lim it the number o f consumers.As early as 1883 Louis C. Hughes of the Star declared that the high license technique was the most feasible means of suppres­ sin g v ic e ever devised by the American mind and sim ultane- ously the most effective means ' of collecting revenue. 51

^ Ibid. These were also the basic departments of the national union. However, there were scores of sub­ departments to expedite any business which the unions might encounter. 50Grant, "The Liquor Traffic Before the 18th Amend­ ment, " p. 3. 51Arizona Daily Star. April 18, 1883. Toward the end of the 1880's an increasing number of temperance advocates looked on high license as a stepping stone to broader reforms. Hard-pressed by the anti-liquor agitators, the fourteenth territorial legislature stepped squarely up to the license controversy and raised the fees. The increas however, was so minimal that it could hardly have been called a "high license" move. Saloon-keepers who had previously paid thirty dollars were by the new law requir to pay fifty. The greatest change was in the classificat of rates for dealers who dispensed liquor in quantities of more than two quarts. The highest tax of $125 quarter applied only to those dealers whose quarterly sales avera CO $25,000 or more. For those who genuinely believed that the high license scheme was the best legislative correct! for the social ills brought about by the liquor traffic, the law of 1887 was farcical, merely a paltry gesture of appeasement. Other temperance workers, however, knew tha the new license fees were in no way prohibitive, but took the legislative action as a sign that they still commande the attention of the lawmakers. They were content to sit back and w ait for a more au spiciou s time to push for a comprehensive high license law.

•^Revised Statutes of Arizona. 1887 (Prescott, 1887), p. 39o. 2 3 During the session of the fourteenth legislature, the temperance lobbyists had their first experience with political logrolling. The Sunday closing law which they fostered was introduced by A. McKay, a reform-minded Assembly member from Tucson, but was postponed indefinitely co after a first reading. Attempts at gambling regulation, which managed to creep into the affairs of almost every legislative session, appeared again in 1887 and gave rise to squabbles within the legislature as well as pressure from outside interests. The temperance people sought legislation which would completely outlaw gambling. The lawmakers, however, realized that the absolute prohibition of gambling would severely cut school funds. They deliberated over this question and decided to raise s lig h t ly the lic e n s e fe e s on games o f chance. They rationalized that a monthly increase of five dollars on each gambling table would be sufficient to put the clamps on small time gambling establishments and enacted the necessary laws. The legislature also stiffened the penalty

53 C. Louise Boehringer in "Josephine Brawley Hughes, Crusader and Statebuilder," Arizona Historical Review. II, No. 4 (January, 1930), states that the 1887 Sunday closing law was passed. The journals of the 1887 legislative session, however, and the statute records are devoid of such legis­ lation. See Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1887 (Prescott. 1887), p. 378, and Revised Statutes of Arizona. 1887. 2 4 on unlicensed gambling, now fining the owner not less than $100 or more than $1,000 for each unlicensed game. The passage of the 1887 ordinance brought a deluge of disapproval. The law was denounced as insipid and contradictory because in one breath it declared gambling a crime and in the next lic e n se d the crime.Governor C. Meyer Zulick*^ vetoed on moral grounds a lottery b ill passed by the fourteenth legislature, but he approved of the gambling which the temperance people deemed to be most immoral. Zulick was scathingly criticized, branded a double-crosser, and denounced as a blatant hypocrite. The same temperance lobbyists who had met with complete success in the 1885 legislature felt thoroughly thwarted by the conciliatory methods of its successor. Although in 1887 the lawmakers had been unreceptive to the pleadings of the White Ribbon Army, the WCTU lost no ground in its battle for new conquests among Arizona*s citizenry. New local unions were constantly added, while

^Revised Statutes of Arizona. 1887. p. 398. Arizona Daily Star. October 9, 1887. 5^In March of 1885 C. Meyer Zulick of New Jersey was appointed governor by his political associate and friend, President Cleveland. The whole of Zulick*s career as t e r r it o r ia l governor was marked by controversy. He was replaced in 1889 when President Harrison took office. McClintock, III, pp. 336-338. 57phoenix Herald. March 27, 1887. 2 5 the old groups plunged into more ambitious programs. Protestant churches everywhere offered their support to the movement. The Arizona Methodist-Episcopal Conference of 1387 resolved to press the next Congress for a law pro­ hibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicating beverages in the territories, and proceeded to take an active role in the local struggle against the liquor traffic.-’0 In other churches, abstinence and p ro h ib itio n became a popular theme of Sunday sermons. Temperance revivals and dis­ cussion sessions were crowded into the social schedules of an increasing number of religious groups.The Adelphi Bard of Holiness, an auxiliary of a fundamentalist organiza­ tion, held Sunday mass meetings in the plaza at Tucson, and their soap-box speakers assailed the liquor curse. Speakers from both local and national organizations traveled to all corners of the territory to foment feelings for the temperance cause. Newspapers across the territory began to take a stand on the liquor question. Prohibition was becoming a full-blown issue in Arizona. *Ill,

CO ",°Very early the national Methodist church had made strong stands on the liquor question. In 1880 its general conference came out for a complete legal prohibition. This was the platform they stood on as a denomination and pledged to b a ttle u n t il p ro h ib itio n was secured in every s ta te and territory and finally embodied in the Constitution. Wade Crawford Barclay, The Methodist-Episcopal Church. 1845-1895. Ill, p. 57; Arizona Daily Star. October 16, 1887. Arizona D aily S ta r. December 8, 1888. 60Ibid.. February 13, 1887. 26 Although the WCTU and the Good Templars shared center-stage positions in the first act of the prohibition drama in Arizona, others persons and organ ization s climbed through the ranks to occasionally bask in the spotlight. After the two-week stand of the nationally acclaimed prohibition orator, Colonel George Tfoodford, in February of 1889, temperance sentiment in Tucson soared to a new high. In the course of his ten lectures the colonel relentlessly upbraided liquor drinkers and peddlers and succeeded in inspiring scores of his listeners to sign abstinence oaths. At the close of Woodford's stint, the exhilarated abstainers of Tucson formed a "Temperance Mutual Improvement Club"; it comprised those who had signed the pledge and vowed to stand by temperance r e f o r m s . Mrs. Hughes q u ite n a tu ra lly presided over the executive committee which drew up the constitution of the new organization. The committee, aided by Colonel Woodford who lingered long enough to oversee the organizational proceedings, laid the foundation for the club. They shortened the original name to the Tucson Temperance Legion, thereby crea tin g an aura o f m ilita rism and s e t fo rth as the object of the association the advancement of temperance principles.^ in the first month of its existence^ *62

6^-Ibid. . February 16, 1889. 62ibid.. February 17, 1889. 27 the Legion was an aggressive moral force in Tucson; its members agitated for the correction of a variety of social ills. Before a half year had passed, however, interest had waned and members began d r iftin g away. The bi-m onthly meetings, which had formerly been high-powered tactical s e ssio n s, became nothing more than d u ll s o c ia l e v e n t s .^ Memories of Colonel Woodford's tirades lost their emotional appeal and soon faded from the recollections of the once stalwart Tucson legionaries. In 1889 another nationally renowned temperance figure visited Arizona. Mrs. M. L. Blair, chief organizer of juvenile work for the WCTU, proposed to recruit the children of the territory into her "Loyal Temperance Legion" and to train them for clandestine action . ^ Mrs. Blair appealed most dramatically to her young listeners through her famous "chalk talks." After Mrs. Blair had delineated the myriad evil effects of alcohol, she mapped out on the blackboard a scheme of living based jointly on total abstinence from alcoholic beverages and active parti­ cipation in temperance programs. In her first recruiting sessions in Phoenix and Tcuson, Mrs. Blair succeeded in drafting more than two hundred Arizona children into her burgeoning army. She also enlisted the services of ladies

^ Tucson Citizen. August 10, 1889.

^Arizona Daily Star. January 22, 1889. 28 of the WCTU to institute new regiments of Loyal Temperance L egionaires across the te r r ito r y . 6*5 J The movement was only unevenly successful in Arizona, but because of its alliance with the WCTU it continued in existence throughout the anti-liquor crusade. By the end of the 1880's the confident Arizona crusaders had witnessed the steady growth of reform through new organizations and legislative successes. At the end of the first full decade of reform, the Arizona crusaders were earnestly dedicated to their plans of revamping the social and moral system of the territory.^

^ Arizona Gazette. March 10, 1887. ^In the 1889 legislative session the Sunday closing matter was finally taken up. By that time the issue was lou dly demanded by many newspapers and a l l r e lig io u s organ i­ zations. It was a matter of social concern to the UCTU which lobbied in its behalf. The bill was passed late in the session. Arizona Daily Star. March 9, 1889. CHAPTER I I

LAVENDER AND NEW LACE IN THE NINETIES

By the decade of the 18901s Arizona had become fully committed to social reform. During the preceding years, pioneer crusaders laid down the psychological groundwork for future movements. Once reformist sentiment had taken hold in the territory, enthusiastic men and women came to the fore. For the first time a handful of citizens attacked the seemingly impregnable status quo, convinced that their perseverance and increased prestige would enable them to make headway against specific social vices. They organized, plotted, agitated and eventually they experienced the first blushes of success. Although their achievements were palliatives rather than reforms, the crusaders gained with each small victory new confidence and fo r titu d e and a r is in g co n v ictio n o f the worth o f their cause. By the beginning of the 90*s the objectives of reform were no longer merely hazy and idealistic. Crusaders and a g ita to r s now had d e fin ite means to a tta in definite goals, and would be satisfied with nothing less than total victory. Arizona reformers drew sustenance from nationwide trends. The progressive movement,

2 9 3 0 embodying a strong belief in the moral law, was receiving acceptance on both the national and local levels.^ Arizona crusaders strove for these high progressive standards. They polished their techniques and synthesized their goals. They singled out one progressive tenet, prohibition, and made that their ultimate aim.^ Territoral crusaders reasoned that in the course of attaining this single goal, all lesser objectives would be accomplished. Thus prohibition became the battle cry of these reformers, and they did not cease to repeat that cry until their goal had been achieved.

Ifhe progressive movement, the actual roots of which were in the Populist Party, came into full play in American^ politics after 1900. The Populist Party, organized in 1892, was dedicated to eliminating political and moral corruption. The p ro g ressiv es put great stock in new d evices for demo­ cratic government such as the direct primary, initiative and referendum, direct election of senators, and such social reforms as prohibition and woman suffrage. Two excellent works on the p ro g ressiv e movement are Richard H o fsta d ter's The Age o f Reform (New York, 1955) and The P rogressive Movement, 1900 to 1915 (New York, 1963). Both o f th ese take up woman suffrage and prohibition in the treatment of progressive social reforms. 2James H. Timberlake, in his excellent work Prohibi­ tio n and the P rogressive Movement. 1900 to 1920 (Cambridge, 1963), notes that prohibition and progressivism shared many common principles and goals. Progressives sought high standards of moral law; prohibitionists hoped to ban any commercial product which was believed to undermine the basic goodness of men. Progressivism quickened the humanitarian pulse and attempted to thwart crime, poverty, and disease; prohibition aimed to wipe out a basic cause of such social distress. Both progressivism and prohibition hoped to ameliorate society by using direct legislation. 3 1 In the first year of the new decade, Arizona cru­ saders began to abandon the inclusive term "temperance reform" and substituted the single dramtic word "prohibi­ tion" as their chant. The Arizona WCTU convention of 1890 adopted a resolution urging the United States Congress to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages in the territories. Now for the first time the WCTU spoke out officially on the subject. The motivation behind this r e so lu tio n la y in the sp ecta cle o f murder and w h olesale destruction of property by drunken Indians. Only the absolute prohibition of alcohol within territorial lim its, the women reasoned, would effectively curtail such atroci­ t i e s . The WCTU convention o f 1890 was more m a n ifestly moralistic than any which had preceded it. The delegates resolved also to labor for the suppression of "unpure literature," "unchaste" pictures, and graphic newspaper accounts of vicious crimes, prize fights, and divorce suits. New committees were created to deal with Social Purity, Foreigners, Mothers, Temperance Literature and Press, Soldiers, Hygiene and Heredity. The convention adjourned on a note of gushing praise and thanks for the recent work of a national WCTU organizer, Mrs. M. L. Wells, who had recently established several new unions in the territory.3

3Arizona Daily Star. March 30, 1890. Mrs. Wells was one of a number of national organizers sent to the territories to maintain, and to in still where needed, strong 3 2

When the delegates adjourned, they went away with the emotional fervor to pursue clear-cut goals and devise tactics for a new round of agitation. Although many Protestant churches in the territory had lent a hand in the temperance activities of the 1880's, none but the Methodist-Episcoal Church had come out with a strong stand on the issue. The delegates to the Terri­ torial Methodist-Episcopal Conference of 1890 restated their original request for congressional prohibition and added a general resolution condemning alcohol. The minister-delegates categorically declared that as loyal Methodists they must commit themselves to temperance reform. They appraised the political climate and outlined the approach which should be utilized in their crusade. Good judgment and kindness, they moralized, were golden qualities for reformers: "We must be as wise as serpents if we would be as harmless as doves to the cause of temperance in the territory." All Methodist ministers were entreated to preach at least one sermon on temperance during the msuing year and to give a "temperance ring" to all their pulpit work.^ Such a strong declaration of

temperance sentiment. She presided at the 1890 convention. In her tour of the territory, she had established local unions in Bisbee and Casa Grande, Tempe, and Ajo. ^Arizona Daily Star. October 5, 1890. 3 3 principles, laid down by the most aggressive Protestant denomination in Arizona, revived interest in the prohibition movement among oth er r e lig io u s groups. At the same time th a t p r o h ib itio n began to make headway in Arizona, a second and only slightly less sig­ nificant reform movement, woman* s suffrage, also begged to be heard. The f i r s t h in ts o f an equal r ig h ts movement had appeared on the national scene in the early 1830*s.5 From the time of its inception, the demand for equal suffrage was inseparably bound up with the emancipation of women. The movement was b a s ic a lly another m an ifestation of the natural rights theory, and soon women were protest­ ing against taxation without representation.^ In 1869 two

^In 1833 Oberlin College, established by the abo­ lition ist Theodore Weld and the Lane Seminary rebels for the purpose of inciting reform, opened its doors to men and women either Negro or white. In that year the Grirnke sisters of South Carolina began an abolitionist crusade which was destined to stir up far-reaching controversy. In the following years, several women's abolitionist groups emerged. "Eleanor Flexner, A Century of Struggle: Woman's R ights Movements in the U n ite d S ta te s CCambridge.1959), p . 2 6 7 .This book is the most complete, documented work on the subject of women's rights. It is not sociological or propagandist in tone. The author has studied the origins of equal suffrage agitation in the United States and has traced the development to the enactment of suffrage by Congress in 1920. Woman Suffrage and P olitics, by Carrie Chapman Catt and Nettie Rogers Shuler, is interesting principally because Mrs. Catt was one of the four presidents of the National Suffrage Association. It is, of course, biased in its presentation. The six-volume History of Woman Suffrage, edited by Ida. Husted Harper and Susan B. Anthony, is a good record of the work of the suffrage organizations in the United States. Especially valuable 3 4 groups sharing the common aim of suffrage for women were organized. The American Woman Suffrage Association was led by Lucy Stone, and the National Woman Suffrage Associ- ciation was captained by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The groups d iffe r e d more in the p e r so n a lity o f their leadership than in their tactics, and both concen­ trated their efforts on obtaining suffrage on state and territorial levels.^ In 1869 the territorial legislature of Wyoming broke the ice and handed over the ballot to women. This precedent-setting success encouraged reformers in other states and territories to labor on behalf of equal O rights for women. As early as 1883 Arizona experienced agitation for woman su ffrage when Murat Masterson, a young Democrat councilman from Yavapai County, submitted a poorly prepared suffrage b ill to the legislature. When the b ill came up for discussion, Councilman Masterson dramatically reiterated the old suffrage appeals and spoke in eloquent terms of the elevating effects of equal rights. His oration won the

are the accounts of specific campaigns in the states and territories. The six-page account of Arizona* s crusade was written by Frances Willard Minds. 7 Harriet Grace Webster, "Woman Suffrage in Congress" (M. A. thesis, University of Arizona, 1934), p. 1. ^Flexner, A Century of Struggle, p, 157. 3 5 hearts of the lady visitors in the balcony but did little to inspire his colleagues. One unimpressed legislator retorted coldly that it would be baneful and demoralizing to allow mothers, wives, and sisters to dabble in politics. Without further discussion the debate terminated, and the proposal was curtly rejected by a seven to three count.^ The Twelfth Legislative Assembly was not entirely cold-hearted, however, in regard to equal suffrage rights. In an 11 Act to Establish a Public School System for Arizona,” the lawmakers ruled that no person should be denied the right to vote at any school district election or denied the right to hold any school district office on account of sex.*® The legislators must have assumed that school elections were so free from political intrigue and corruption that they would not offend the delicate sensitivities of Arizona womanhood. Whatever th e ir reasoning, t e r r it o r ia l women after 1883 did have their hands on at least one ballot. Not until 1891 did woman suffrage receive serious consideration from Arizona lax-makers. By then the women

^Louis C. Hughes, in reporting the 1883 suffrage proposal,- could only poke fun at Councilman Masterson. He inferred that Masterson had no interest in the reform outside of a personal love of xromen, and treated the whole matter as comical entertainment. Arizona Daily Star. February 21, 1883. . *®Amended School Laws of the Territory of Arizona Enacted bv the Twelfth Legislative Assembly, 1883. Territorial publication.(no other data given). 36 j \ o f the te r r ito r y had become more outspoken in th e ir demands and better schooled in the techniques of political pressure. Many members o f the WCTU now divided th e ir tim e and became engrossed in the woman's rights crusade, adding to the corps of stalwart suffrage agitators already active. In 1891 Gus A. Hoff of Pima County introduced a b ill conferring upon 11 women the franchise and the right to hold public office. Immediately his proposals became the subject of widespread controversy. Louis C. Hughes devoted considerable newspaper space to suffrage in the hope of popularizing the movement, and dwelled at length on the moral efficacy of putting the b a llo t in the hands o f women. Mrs. Hughes may have glared over her husband's shoulder as he wrote: Those who oppose the enfranchisement of American women do not realize the fact that woman is responsible for the moral culture of our world, for the character of our men and the depth and breadth and grandeur of the soul's power . . . for it is true that nine out of ten times the charac­ ter of the boy is just what his mother makes it. It is not true that the exercise of the franchise is demoralizing - the opposite is true. Its influence is elevating - it is one of the greatest of educators.IZ

^-Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1891 (Prescott. 1891). o. 447. IZArizona Daily Star. March 1, 1891. After 1883 Hughes completely changed his approach to suffrage legis­ lation. With his wife, he now devoted his energies to the promotion of suffrage sentiments. In 1885, when a suffrage b ill was brought before the territorial legislature, he was loud in his praise of this reform. From that time he could be counted on as a champion of equal -rights. 3 7 In the legislature, however, equal rights received less glowing p r a ise . The H off proposal was referred to the Committee on Elections, which promptly recommended that it not pass. When the b ill was taken up as a special order o f b u sin ess, however, the measure managed to squeak through the Assembly by a vote of eleven to ten. The suffragists were joyful, but then feared that the b ill would be hard-pressed in the Council. They were right. When an attempt to postpone the controversial measure indefinitely had failed, it went to the committee of the whole which recommended that the b ill be defeated. Meanwhile the lobbyists for the Farmer’s Alliance of Maricopa County, together with the WCTU, pleaded for the passage.By the tim e the b i l l came up for i t s th ird and final reading, tension was high in the Council chamber. The balcony was crowded with suffragettes who hung on the impassioned speeches of their champions on the floor. When the final vote was taken, woman suffrage passed by the amazing margin of ten to two. Suffragists throughout the territory were jubilant. Josephine B. Hughes wired the glad tidings to Frances Willard and urged the WCTU p resid en t

•^Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly. 1891. p. 271. The Farmer's Alliances were outgrowths of the Grange. In the.late 18801s these alliances were formed to combat.monopolites and unfair agrarian policies. Because of their connection with the Grange and the Populist Party policies, the Farmer's Alliances were sympathetic to woman su ffra g e . 3 8 to send congratulations to the Council.Miss W illard followed these instructions and telegraphed her words of praise: "Earnest thanks from women’s hearts. God bless you. See Luke, second chapter, fourteenth verse. The days of the 1891 suffrage victory were short lived, however, and suffragists of Arizona were in for a crushing blow. The Council, for an unaccountable reason, took up the Hoff bill again. On the second round of voting, the measure was killed by the tie vote of six to six.^ The su ffrage movement o f 1891 had been defeated by a technical knock-out at the hands of the sixteenth legis­ la tu r e . The su ffra g e d isp u te was not the only controversy which plagued Arizona lawmakers in 1891. The old high license problems cropped up again to create dissention and unrest. Temperance sentiment had now hit a new high, and arguments for and against moral legislation on this matter had crystallized. Temperance leaders reasoned that if the

■^Earhart, Frances Willard, p. 202. l^The verse referred to reads: "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace good w ill toward men." After the b i l l was reversed, one member o f the C ou n cil. recommended that the telegram be spread across the minutes with the name of C. Meyer Zulick substituted for St. Luke. Governor Zulick had been loud in his support of suffrage legislation. Arizona Daily Star. March 10, 1891. 16lbid.. March 19, 1891. 3 9 liquor dealers were allowed to continue in their evil profession, it was the duty of high-minded citizens to work for the highest possible tax rates and thus drive out the lowest classes of groggeries. The legislature had pledged itself to the reduction of tax burdens, and the reformers, playing upon this point, now pointed remorsefully to the statistics which indicated that the greatest expense to the te r r ito r y and the co u n ties came from the crim inal co u rts, the prisons, and the insane asylums. Statistics further demonstrated that more than eighty-eight percent of the persons referred to these institutions were the victims of strong drink. From this evidence high license advocates concluded that the most effective way for the legislature to ease the tax burden was to curtail the cause of taxation and that cause, of course, was the saloon.^7 The b ill which was finally brought before the legis­ lature by J. J. Fisher of Yavapai increased the fee for saloon licenses $200 per quarter.18 Opponents of high license in general, and of the Fisher bill in particular, argued that there was no sound basis for such a drastic tax jump. Such legislation, they contended, would only create monopolies in the sale of ardent spirits. It would prohibit

17These arguments were put forth in an open letter from Tucson taxpayers. It appeared in the Arizona Daily Star. .February 26, 1891.. 18lbld.. February 27, 1891. 4 0 the poor man from selling liquor while his richer competitor could still be sanctioned to do so, and would do nothing to promote the cause of temperance. Moreover, the terri­ torial government would cut itself off from much needed revenue.^ When the proposal finally came to a test, it went down to defeat by thirteen votes to eleven.^0 Thus the status quo narrowly survived the attack, but the same bitter arguments would be bantered about in succeeding legislative assemblies until the lawmakers finally succumbed to the demands o f th e reform ers. In the Republican administration of President Harrison, statehood for the western territories was on the agenda of Congress. Among others, the sparsely populated territories of Wyoming and Montana had achieved statehood in 1889-1890. By 1891 the Territory of Arizona was seeking admission into the Union. To this end, the sixteenth legislature called a convention to meet in September of th a t year to draw up a c o n stitu tio n fo r the p ro sp ectiv e S ta te o f Arizona.In June f iv e Republicans and seventeen Democratic delegates were chosen in the various counties.22

l^Prescott Journal Miner. February 13, 1891. 2QIb id . , March 1, 1891. 2lFrank P. Conklin, "The Development of the Constitu­ tion of the State of Arizona1.'. (M. .A. thesis, University of Southern California, 1928), p. 4. 22Arizona Daily Star. June 21, 1891. 4 1 The weeks preceding the convention were filled with con­ jecture on the nature of the forthcoming constitution and the treatment which various issues would receive at the convention. Speculators soon realized that the delegates would be confronted with the suffrage question in their treatment of election and franchise provisions. Suffra­ gists throughout the territory, spurred to action by their near-victory in the last legislature, resolved to make an all-out effort at the constitutional convention. Josephine B. Hughes once again led the way. She urged Mrs. Laura M. Johns, a successful suffrage crusader from Kansas, to visit Arizona and train the women of the territory in the tactics 23 of effective agitation. Mrs. Johns responded to the challenge and immediately began corresponding with those delegates who seemed the most receptive to the inclusion of woman suffrage in the constitution.^ Late in August

23 Mrs. Johns was from S alin a, Kansas. She became in volved in su ffra g e work in 1884 and rose at once to p o s i­ tions of leadership in Kansas. A highly skilled organizer and convention manager,. she was also an effective speaker and writer. In 188/ she was elected president of the Kansas Women's Rights Association and held that office for eight y ea rs. Mrs. Johns campaigned in nine s ta te s and t e r r it o r ie s . Harper, History of Woman Suffrage. VI, pp. 339-340. Z^There was considerable talk about how the suffrage question would be presented at the convention. Some urged a proposition which would allow all citizens to vote regard­ less of sex; others asserted that none should be allowed to vote who did not speak English; still others insisted that only citizens who could read or write in the English language should be entitled to the ballot. Arizona Daily Star. August 29, 1891. 4 2 Mrs. Johns arrived in the te r r ito r y and jo in ed fo rces w ith

O C Louis and Josephine Hughes. By the time the convention convened, Mrs. Johns had made the personal acquaintance of all reform-minded delegates, and was in a position to make the most of all existing suffrage sentiment.

The constitutional convention opened in Phoenix on September 9, 1891, but not until nine days later did the delegates finally take up the suffrage question. Colonel William Herring, who represented a committee advocating su ffra g e, recommended th at the convention allow Mrs. Johns 27 and other speakers to be heard. On September 23 a special hearing was granted to the advocates of equal suffrage. Mrs. Johns made the first appeal. She was followed by M. E. Collins, who presented a spirited argument for the rights of women in Arizona:

^**In the weeks before and during the convention, Louis C. Hughes devoted considerable editorial space to discussions of the reasons why suffrage should be incor­ porated in the new constitution. He was by far the most ardent suffragist among newspapermen of the territory. ^ Arizona Daily Star. September 25, 1891. ^Colonel William Herring, leader of the pro-suffrage forces at the convention, was a graduate of Columbia Law School. Before coming to Arizona in 1880, he served terms as representative in the New York legislature. Herring, a Republican, was territorial attorney general in the Irwin and Murphy administrations. He also served as Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the University of Arizona. Me Clintock, Arizona. The Youngest State. Ill, p. 392. 4 3 Let the right thing be done on the matter, though heaven fall. I think we should consider in all seriousness the right of women to vote when the r ig h t i s asked by such women as Mrs. Hughes, who left the home of her youth and the graves of her ancestors to come here amid . privations of the pioneer days of Arizona.2° After ninety minutes of haranguing, the convention reconvened and took up the proposal to grant enfranchise­ ment to Arizona women. After the proposed clause to extend the franchise was read in full, an amendment was immediately offered to lim it the franchise to male c iti­ zens. Several delegates jumped to their feet and protested that the principle of extension of the franchise vanished when the word "male" was in serted in to the p rop osal. The debate steadily degenerated into a mere recitation of reasons for the feelings of individual delegates on the question. Marcus A. Smith solemnly insisted that the question should not be played with, and pledged to act in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, his wife, and his God. Marshall H. Williams declared that his education, his training, and his wife were against woman suffrage, and that voting was too sacred to be legislated on without the complete endorsement of the people. Other delegates proceeded to estimate wildly the percentage of their constituents favoring or opposing woman suffrage.

^Harper and Anthony, History of Woman Suffrage. IV, p . 470. 29journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona. 1891 (Phoenix.1891), pp. 31-32. 4 4 No lucid, logical arguments were put forth either for or against the inclusion of an equal rights clause in the constitution. The delegates neatly skirted the central issue. They had no intention of settling the matter in the constitution, but were merely attempting to appease the ardent forces of reform. When the question finally came to a vote, the foregone conclusion became an actuality and woman 30 suffrage was stricken from the constitution. Clearly the principle of equal rights was still only a small under­ current in the reform movement in Arizona. In order to achieve legislative or constitutional action in the future, suffragists would have to develop a tidal wave of support. The temperance movement had now been in f u l l swing for roughly eight years, and reformers had tried a variety of methods to advance their position. In 1891 they tried a

*^The f in a l v o te o f 1891 was 15 to 6. In S ection 3 of the Constitution future extension of voting rights was provided fo r. The le g is la tu r e was empowered to extend the right to vote without regard to sex, but no law extending or restricting the suffrage could be enforced until adoption by a majority at a general election. Constitution for the State of Arizona as Adopted bv the Constitutional Convention of 1891 (Phoenix. 1891). p. 21. 3^-The prohibition question never came before the constitutional convention. The leaders apparently realized that they would have no chance of convincing the convention to include prohibition in the constitution, and therefore spared themselves the effort of lobbying for it. 4 5 new approach which resulted in the first "dry" town in the territory. The Glendale Temperance Colony was founded that year by B. A. Hadsell, a land organizer from the East,^ All land in Glendale was deeded to Hadsell with this stipulation: if a saloon were ever established there, the owner could be forced to forfeit all his rights and all the land would revert to its original owner. In that way the sale of liquor and the establishment of saloons were forever outlawed. Hadsell imported some seventy-five temperance-oriented families to the Salt River Valley, and they conposed the core of the new colony. Others were encouraged to settle in the little town, which was touted as a haven for men of thrift, diligence, and clean living. Although it had a few bouts with the saloon faction, G lendale managed to remain a dry town throughout the territorial period. Each session of the legislature saw new attempts to foster reformism in the territory. In his annual message

oo Mr. Hadsell apparently had no connection with any church or temperance organization; he was strictly a land colonizer. His card read: "Excursions and colonizing of Quakers, Dunkards, Menonites, and River Brethern a specialty. Special attention to lands of non-residents." Many of the original settlers of Glendale were members of the Brethern Church of Illinois. Arizona Weekly Enterprise. December 19, 1891. 33 In the early 1900*s some Glendale residents were inconvenienced by the prohibition stipulation. Drinkers had to travel to Phoenix for their liquor and then smuggle it to Glendale. On the whole, however, the anti-liquor regula­ tion was not violated to any large degree until the town grew large enough to keep such matters under cover. Arizona 4 6 to the legislature in 1893, Governor Nathan 0. Murphy recommended several social measures for which territorial temperance advocates had long labored.The governor unequivocably endorsed woman suffrage. He emphasized his conviction, however, that prohibition could not success­ fully "prohibit" and offered high license control as a so lu tio n to the problem. He a lso recommended the enactment of a law prohibiting women from entertaining in saloons, then urged the repeal of the old law which licensed gamb­ ling. Mtrphy preferred local option for the regulation of such practices. He pointed out the moral anomaly of educating the youth of the territory with the funds pro­ cured from such an odious practice. When the legislators took up the points which the governor had outlined, they were as enthusiastic as ever. Liquor license rates were raised, though again the increase was not considerable enough to constitute a high license move.Once again the legislature battled over the

Republican. May 19, 1921. ^Nathan Oakes Murphy was one of the first reform- minded territorial officials. A Republican, he had served as Secretary of State.under Governor John Irwin. Because Irwin was often away, Murphy became Acting.Governor. In May of 1892 he began his first term as governor. In April of the following year he was replaced by President Cleveland’s appointee, Louis C. Hughes. 35 ' Biennial Message of the Governor of Arizona to the Seventeenth L e g is la tiv e AssAmblv CPhoenix, 1893), pp. 17-20. 36 • The 1893 liquor license law set up broad classifi­ cations for retail liquor dealers: first class - those whose 4 7 suffrage question, only to have the matter sanctioned by one chamber and rejected in the other. In spite of the defeat of the recommended reforms, the sponsorship of them by Governor Murphy indicated the trend toward official recognition of temperance principles. Arizona reform had long heard the strong voices of Louis and Josephine Hughes. Since very early in the temperance crusade the couple had been at the front lines organizing, encouraging, and issuing orders to the troops. In 1878 they had established the first daily newspaper in Arizona, the Arizona Daily Star, which soon became an unequivocal reformist organ. The Star voiced a determined and aggressive opposition to saloons and gambling houses and went so far as to close its advertising columns to these interests. From the outset Hughes had used his editorial column to pour scathing criticism on what he believed to be the immoral elements of society, and in time he penned his way through one crusade after another.His w ife, quarterly sales amounted to $20,000 and upwards were required to pay $125; second class for those whose sales were less than $20,000 and more than $12,000 paid $100 q u arterly. Third class: for those whose sales were less than $12,000 paid a quarterly tax of $75. This was designed to be a more equitable treatment of the liquor problem. Acts. Resolu­ tions and Memorials of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1893 (Phoenix. 1893). pp. 109-110. 37 On November 15, 1882 a Star e d ito r ia l denounced p r o h ib itio n and woman su ffra g e as "twin f o l l i e s ." Hughes charged that such legislation had been passed in.Republican states and was merely fanaticism under a new guise. At that point in his career Hughes identified the two reforms with 4 8 truly an indefatigable organizer, set the tempo for many early temperance and suffrage campaigns. In 1890 she was elected to the first of several terms as territorial WCTU president.Between 1893 and 1896 Jfr. and Mrs. Hughes reached the peak of their influence in territorial affairs. President Cleveland appointed Louis Hughes governor of 39 Arizona in April, 1893. With the wife of the governor still serving as chief officer of the WCTU, that organiza­ tion was now in the most advantageous position possible to advance reformist policies in Arizona. As governor, Hughes used his annual report to the Secretary o f th e In te rio r as a means o f p u b lic iz in g the

Republican policies, and as a thorough-going Democrat he would not support them. Within a few years, however, Hughes had completely revised his stand on suffrage and prohibi­ tio n . •^In her article in "Josephine Brawley Hughes, Crusader and Statebuilder," C. Louise Boehringer states that Mrs. Hughes was first elected president of the WCTU in 1894. The minutes of the 1890 WCTU convention, however, indicate that she was first elected in that year. S^The old story regarding this _ appointment is that at the beginning of the Cleveland administration the leading contenders for the governorship were Fred Hughes, a gambler and head o f the Democratic C entral Committee, and Louis C. Hughes. One day a photographer entered the Congress Hall saloon and su r r e p titio u sly snapped a p ictu re o f Fred Hughes dealing a faro hand. The picture was mailed to Cleveland with the words, "Here is Mr. Hugheys opponent at his daily work." Shortly th e rea fter Louis C. Hughes was given the appointment. From an undated newspaper clipping in the "Prohibition" file, McClintock Collection, Phoenix Public Library. 4 9 terrible burdens which weighed upon the territory as a result of the liquor traffic. There were 672 saloons and ten wholesale liquor houses in Arizona he reported in 1894, and the territorial "drink bill" for the year amounted to $3,056,000. Not less than fifty percent of the cost of maintaining the county and territorial government, he said, was the result of alcoholic intemperance; and because of the liquor traffic Arizona could not avoid violating the federal law, the Harrison Act which limited territorial indebtedness to one percent of the assessed value of the taxable property in all political or municipal subdivi­ s i o n s .^ Indeed, Hughes lamented, Arizona had by 1890 far exceeded the lim it s e t by the H arrison Act, and as o f June, 1893 the territory had a floating indebtedness of $170,523 in direct violation of the law. Although the governor did not call directly for regulation of the liquor traffic to correct this financial dilemma, his implications were pointed toward that end. In reference to liquor traffic among the Indians, h is demands were more e x p lic it . Every Apache outbreak in thirty years, he declared, was a direct result of intoxicating drink. If the government wished to remove federal troops from Arizona, then it must take action 41 to protect Indians from strong drink. In making these

Louis C. Hughes, Report of the Governor of the Territory of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior. 1894 (Washington, D. C., 1894;, pp. 55-56.!! 41 Ibid. , p. 53. 50 recommendations, Hughes became the first Arizona governor to attempt to enlist the national administration in the territorial prohibition crusade. At the same tim e Mrs. Hughes was a lso making unprecedented contributions to the social reform movement. While her husband was saving both the whites and the Indians from destruction, Josephine Hughes, in full career as WCTU president, advocated temperance training for the young and a single standard of morality for men and women, young and old. She traveled to all corners of the territory to recruit new soldiers for her army.^ in her presidential address to the WCTU convention in 1894, Mrs. Hughes echoed familiar sentiments as she lauded the women of Arizona as the territory’s greatest influence for good. This time, however, her message had a dramatic final note. She made a forthright plea for suffrage and then announced her resig­ n a tio n as p resid en t o f the WCTU.^ She had come to the conclusion that women could not wage effective battle against the forces of evil without a strong political voice. Women must get the all-powerful vote. Prohibition would come then and only then.

^ Arizona Republican. May 25, 1894. ^Presidential message of Josephine Hughes, WCTU Scrapbook for 1894, WCTU Home, Phoenix. For the first time the WCTU passed a suffrage resolution: "Resolved: That we w ill use our influence for the party whose platform contains a plank giving equal suffrage to women." Subsequently a suffrage resolution was offered in every WCTU convention until suffrage was enacted in Arizona in 1912. 51 Throughout his stormy career as governor, Hughes hammered for social reforms. In his biennial address of January 23, 1895, he swamped the legislature with a multi­ tude o f m orality-toned req u ests. L o tteries and games o f chance were cardinal evils which should be absolutely p ro h ib ited . In harmony w ith h is w ife , the WCTU, and h is predecessor Nathan 0. Murphy, Governor Hughes now recom­ mended the ex ten sio n o f the fran ch ise for women. Then, because of the doubtful legality of the Sabbath Rest Act of the sixteenth legislature, the governor entreated the lawmakers to pass an effective Sunday “closing" b ill. In the interest of a higher standard of politics, he asked for the extension of the Purity of Elections Act of 1885.^ Hughes left the legislature to its own devices to find a fitting solution to the liquor problem. The eighteenth legislature did not take these recommendations to heart. Licensed gambling and lotteries remained on the statute books. Suffrage lost out in the Council where several unconverted women had lobbied against it.^ The dangerously controversial issue of "Sunday rest" was tossed aside. Local option legislation was thwarted.^6

^L. C, Hughes, Biennial Message of the Governor of Arizona to the Eighteenth Legislative Assembly (Phoenix. 1895), pp. 21-23. ^ Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1895.(Phoenix. 1895). p. 193. ^ Arizona Daily Star. February 13, 1895. 5 2 Only in the matter of cleaner elections were the governor*s supplications heeded. The new legislation, passed unani­ mously in both chambers, required that each candidate file an election expense account. "Treating11 and bribery were strictly forbidden and punishable with high fines . ^ With the single exception of this piece of legislation, the governor’s broad program of social reforms had failed altogether. By now Hughes was far more d ir e c t in g iv in g th e Secretary of the Interior his views on the solutions to A rizona's s o c ia l problem s. F o rth rig h tly he demanded th at the federal government prohibit liquor in the territory. He exaggerated his earlier statistics and declared that more than sixty percent of the cost of maintaining the government o f each county in th e te r r ito r y came from the liquor traffic. To give the screw an extra turn, he then recounted cost to the federal government of prosecuting cases involving the sale of liquor to Indians which were annually tried in the district courts. Hughes based his case for federally imposed prohibition on the grounds that liquor was a primary cause of'the Indian wars. Indians, driven insane by the firewater distributed illegally to

Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Legis­ lative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona (Phoenix. 1895), p. 23. 5 3 them by avaricious white men, threatened the lives of the pioneers of the territory and indeed its very future: "Congress has passed laws prohibiting the sale of liquor to Indians in the territory. Why not a rule for all? And these Indian wards of the government would then be abso­ lutely protected against its traffic, the only result of which was d e s tr u c tio n ." ^ While her husband was charging ahead with the p ro h ib itio n banner, Mrs. Hughes was at work organizing the women of Arizona for future suffrage crusades. Early in December, 1895, newspapers throughout the territory carried the announcement of Susan B. Anthony and other suffrage leaders that the National Woman Suffrage Association was sponsoring a meeting for the formation of an equal rights association in Arizona: We earnestly request all friends of the cause to be present at the deliberations. . . . Come one and a l l . Let th is be an earn est and en th u si­ astic gathering which shall make an energetic protest against existing conditions - a fit prophesy of a new time when there shall be a higher and truer c i v i l i z a t i o n .49

^ Report of the Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior. 1895 (Washington. D. C. 1895), p 52. Hughes drew the statistics for his 1895 report from the report of C. M. Shannon, internal revenue collector of the district of Arizona and New Mexico. These statistics in their entirety can be found in A Historical and Biographical Recard of the Territory of Arizona (Chicago. 1896k p. 212. 49Susan B. Anthony was unquestionably the most prominent agitator for woman suffrage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. She served as vice-president at large of the National Woman Association from the date of 5 4 As might be expected, Mrs* Hughes was on hand when Laura M. Johns, still the personal representative of the national suffrage association, arrived in Tucson; and, as usual, Mrs. Hughes was ready to suggest the best possible way to disseminate campaign propaganda. On December 6, 1895, the supporters of enfranchisement met in Phoenix to launch the Arizona Suffrage Association. Mrs. Johns plotted the course of the infant organization, which ambitiously resol­ ved to plant a suffrage club in every territorial settlement and to stimulate public opinion.^0 Josephine B. Hughes, whose years of service with the W3TU had prepared her for a position of leadership in the suffrage association, was quite naturally chosen as the first president.^ With their fearless Josephine sounding the trumpet, the little band of suffrage crusaders trudged forth to capture the ballot. Although the Hughes administration was lauded by some as a union of the best elements of the territorial

CO Democratic party, it was also relentlessly attacked from the beginning. Over the years the self-ordained editorial its organization in 1869 until she became president in 1892. 50Arizona Daily Star. December 7, 1895. 51 * The records of this early suffrage organization have not been located. All data is derived from newspaper accounts. ^'•Lights and Shades of Arizona,11 L eslie1 s Illustrated Monthly. March 22, 1894, p. 193. 5 5 preacher had antagonized many segments of the territorial population w ith h is pronouncements, and when he came to the capitol he was not universally popular. In his position as chief executive Hughes continued to vocalize his social philosophy, and at the same time he tried to remove himself from the mainstream of territorial politics. He reported his "terrible struggles against the forces of darkness" to Frances Willard, but believed that the trial was worth withstanding because finally it would bring a beautiful new social order.53 His political adversaries were not so certain of the loveliness of the society envisioned by Hughes. By 1896 they had had enough of his preachments, and now charged Hughes with political corruption.*^ The governor, who had been acclaimed nationally as an "honest, fearless, progressive warrier on corrupt politicians,"55

53i,etter of Louis C. Hughes to Frances Willard. This letter is dated-December. 17. No year is given; however references in-the letter exist that it was 1895. Louis C. Hughes Letterbook, p. 410. Special Collections, University of Arizona Library. 5^From the time of his appointment Hughes had been at odds with the Territorial Democratic Central Committee headed by Fred Hughes, his rival for the gubernatorial post in 1893. This group worked constantly to oust the governor, who was charged with conspiring against the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for Congress in 1894, John C. Herndon. He was also charged with using undue influence in the legislature to secure the passage of bills which he favored. 1-fcClintock, The Youngest State. II, p. 417. 55"Lights and Shades of Arizona," p. 193. 56 was summarily removed from his office exactly three years after assuming it. With each year of crusading, the popularity of p ro h ib itio n mushroomed in Arizona. By the middle o f the decade the two original temperance organizations, the WCTU and the Good Templars, were attempting myriad tech­ niques to stimulate reform sentiment. The Good Templars, which had become an ingrown fraternity, suddenly caught fire and by 1895 had 950 active members, a territorial grand lodge, and twenty-two subordinate lodges.The WCTU, constantly innovating and organizing, grew by leaps and bounds. Operating on the old adage of Frances Willard, "Do Everything," the ladies of the WCTU peddled their propaganda to virtually every segment of territorial society. Through the Loyal Temperance Legion, the Young People*s Christian Temperance Union, and various oratorical and essay contests, they sought to win allegiance in the youth o f Arizona.Volunteer WCTU members taught " scien ­ tific temperance" in the public schools;® Local leaders imported renowned personalities to give dignity to the

Report of L. Hughes to Secretary of the Interior. 1895, p. 52. - • . 57 The Young P eo p le's C hristian Temperance Union was for high school boys and girls. Arizona Daily Star. December 29, 1896. 58In 1886 the United States Congress had enacted a law making temperance study mandatory in all schools under federal control. Earhart, Frances Willard, p. 191. 57 movement, and a t the same tim e they gushed out encouragement to their dedicated lieutenants. Among religious organiza­ tions, the Methodist-Episcopal church continued to be the greatest champion of the prohibition cause. By the end of the decade, sentiment for prohibition was so deeply entrenched in the reform patterns of the territory that there could be no turning back. The last attempt to effect a major reform in nineteenth-century Arizona was the battle for suffrage in 1899. The movement had gained great momentum a fte r the formation of the suffrage organization in December of 1895, and the national association earmarked Arizona for its eg particular attention. After an entirely unsatisfactory reception by the nineteenth legislature, however, interest and enthusiasm began to wane.^® By 1899 su ffra g e campaign­ ing needed a strong tonic - not alcoholic, of course - to revive the old vitality. In preparation for that year's

■^In January, 1896, Mrs. Hughes attended the conven tion of the National Suffrage Association in Philadelphia, where she spoke eloquently of territorial activities. As a result, Arizona was designated for special help from the national association. Catt and Shuler, Woman Suffrage and P o lit ic s (New York, 1926), p . 128. ^0Mrs. Johns had come to Arizona %ain in 1897 to direct the campaign for suffrage. A b ill was introduced in the Assembly, but had an icy reception. By a vote of 13 to 10 the measure was indefinitely postponed. Journal of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1897 (Phoenix, 1897), p. 112. 58 campaign Mrs. Hughes and th e other o f f ic e r s o f the "Arizona Equal Suffrage Association" - as the suffrage organization was now c a lle d - wrote le t t e r s to a l l the members o f the forthcoming legislative session to solicit their support. For its part, the national organization decided to employ arm-twisting methods in Arizona and sent Carrie Chapman Catt and Mary Garrett Hayes to Phoenix to apply the half- Nelson. The ubiquitous Mrs. Catt had her hand on the political pulse of the territory weeks before she actually arrived in Arizona. She corresponded with those legislators who were reported to be interested in woman suffrage and willing to demonstrate in its behalf, but cautioned them to avoid hasty actions before her arrival in the terri­ t o r y .63 As the session convened in January of 1899, Nathan 0. Murphy, again the territorial governor, spoke out once

^Sometime after its organization, the name of the Arizona Suffrage Association was changed to the Arizona Equal Suffrage League. This is the name indicated on a letter to Morris Goldwater, dated November 25, 1898, asking for his views on suffrage. The letter is in the Morris Goldwater Collection, Arizona Historical Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona. _ 62Carrie Chapman Catt, a long-time leader in the National Suffrage Association, was at that time serving as the chairman of its organizational committee. Harper, History of Woman Suffrage. VI, p. 10. 63 ^Letter from Carrie Chapman Catt to Morris Gold- water, January 21, 1899. Morris Goldwater Collection, Arizona Historical Foundation. 5 9 more for equal suffrage, insisting that the participation of women in the affairs of government would have an elevating influence.^ Early in the session a bill for the enfranchisement of women was introduced in the Assembly and passed by an unprecedented plurality of fourteen votes. Mrs. Catt and Miss Hayes, who had been laboring tirelessly in behalf of the b ill, warned the women of the territory that despite the victory they must not let up in their efforts. The two veteran lobbyists recognized far better than their local comrades that the conversative Council would prove difficult to convince. They were correct. From the outset the b ill got chilling treatment in that s e le c t chamber. The end came when the b i l l was referred to the hostile Committee on Education where it was shoved into a pigeonhole to die. A motion by the Council to recall the b ill from the committee was rejected by a vote of seven to five.^ In April Mrs. Catt sadly reported the demise of the Arizona suffrage b ill to the convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association. She was certain that the b ill

^Biennial Message of the Governor of Arizona to the Twentieth Legislative Assembly. 1899 (Phoenix, 1899^$ Journal of-the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1895 (Phoenix. 1895). o. 449. ^ Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1895, p. 581. 60 had been murdered by territorial saloon keepers and pro­ prietors of gambling dens and houses of prostitution who realized that their very existence would be in jeopardy if women were given the vote. Every member of the Council, she lamented, had been blackmailed by the proprietors of such resorts and threatened with political ruin if they backed the suffrage b ill. Yet the true sentiment of the honest men of Arizona was steadfastly for equal suffrage: I have never found anywhere so many strong, determined, able men anxious to espouse our cause as in Arizona. The general sentiment is in our favor. . . . The.press is favorable, the intel­ ligent and moral citizens are eager for it; but the vicious elements, as everywhere, are opposed. If the confidence of the high-minded citizens of the te r r ito r y could somehow be won, Mrs. Catt was sure th at victory would follow. On this note of perpetual optimism, Arizona’ s reform movement o f the n in eteen th century sped headlong into the tw entieth. *IV,

Anthony and Harper, History of Woman Suffrage. IV, pp. 472-473. CHAPTER I I I

OPENING SHOTS OF THE SHOWDOWN

At the turn of the century the United States was on the brink of a golden era of progress and prosperity. Living standards for all classes had inproved markedly creating a more healthy and equitable economic climate. Across the nation Americans were now confident that they could set aright many of the old social injustices inherited from the nineteenth century. Their blueprints for such improvements received widespread attention when Theodore Roosevelt ascended to the presidency in September of 1901. From the outset, Roosevelt vigorously attacked political and moral corruption and championed social legislation. He succeeded in encouraging American crusaders to work for the whole loaf of reform. In Arizona at this time, sentiment for reform was riding a high wave. Encouraged by earlier successes and challenged by the President's social reform policies, Arizona crusaders determined to push forward their battle against the "immoral elements" of society. The first Arizona legislature to meet after the turn of the century placed in the hands of the territorial temperance agitators a powerful weapon with which to beat down the saloon forces.

61 6 2 The 1901 lawmakers, with very little struggle in their ranks, now enacted the first local option law for the territory.*" The twenty-first legislature was not the first to be confronted with the local option question. As early as 1889 temperance sympathizers fought for the passage of legislation which would allow voters in counties or other political subdivisions to decide the prohibition question for themselves. Louis C. Hughes, in judging the local option principle, then praised it as "the most democratic and republican" means o f fa cin g the liq u o r problem.^ The 1889 lawmakers, however, thought local option an unnecessarily drastic move and speedily defeated the pro­ posal. But prohibition advocates refused to let the issue die, and in succeeding legislative sessions it was the chief *2

•4-ocal option was a form of regulation of the liquor traffic which was first tried out in the United States in the 1830's. According to local option principle, voters in local governmental units could decide by direct ballot whether or not the sale of liquor would be permitted or p ro h ib ited . Though the d evice had widespread p o p u la rity , it was generally a failure because of.enforcement problems. John Allen Krout, Origins of Prohibition (New York, 1925), p. 276. 2Arizona Daily Star. March 10, 1889. Other newspaper editors across the territory backed local option as the best means o f facin g demands for p r o h ib itio n . Not a l l of them, however, used the high-sounding arguments of Hughes. A sarcastic pro-local option statement appeared in the March 8, 1889 issue of the Tombstone Epitaph: "Let's have local option so that excessively moral cormnunities can shut up saloons in their vicinity and let their wicked neighbors go to the devil if they want to." 63 demand of temperance lobbyists. Each year anti-saloon sentiment swelled, and the fight to enact local option le g is la t io n became more strenuous. By th e turn o f the century the legislature could no longer ignore the harangues of the now formidable prohibition forces, and in 1901 their request was granted. Armed with local option the obstrep­ erous p r o h ib itio n is ts were now prepared for a showdown. Securing local option was unquestionably the greatest advancement which the prohibitionists had made in their struggle for a dry Arizona. The 1901 law, modeled after the Texas local option statute, provided that after receiving petitions from its citizens, the Board of Super­ visors in each county must order an election at which the qualified voters could determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquors would be prohibited in the county, justice precinct, or lesser political subdivision.^ Two controversial sections of the b ill declared a tworthirds majority was necessary for prohibition, and that incorpo­ rated towns could be segregated in a county vote on prohi­ bition. Many "dry" agitators argued that only a simple major­ ity should be required to enact local prohibition, and others objected to municipal segregation on the grounds that such

^Revised Statutes of Arizona Territory. 1901 (Columbia, Missouri, 1901), pp. 801-806. 64 a provision would make enforcement virtually impossible. Yet few denied that the 1901 law was a substantial victory for the cause. In June of 1902, zealous prohibitionists in Mari­ copa County seized upon the new law as the best weapon for battling the liquor forces.^ The Board of Supervisors announced on June 3 that they had been petitioned by the required number of voters to call a prohibition election for that part of the county north of the Salt River exclud­ ing Phoenix, Ibrristow n, and two sm all camps to the northeast. Acting on this petition the Board set June 24, 5 1902 for the date of the election. The dry forces had high expectations of victory, and virtually no campaigning preceded the local option contest. Newspapers did not publicize or editorialize on the subject, and neither the WCTU nor the Good Templars made any strenuous efforts to encourage prohibition support. Election day arrived with no fanfare, and only 370 Maricopa County voters were enthusiastic enough to go to the polls. The outcome was an easy victory for the drys as 282 votes were cast for

^The Maricopa County local option election was the first significant one in the territory. An article in the June 24, 1902 Arizona Daily Star indicated that there had been local option elections earlier at the towns of St. Johns, Springerville and Troy. In all three localities prohibition was enacted. ^Phoenix Enterprise. June 4, 1902. 6 5 prohibition and only eighty-eight against it.^ The astonished saloon men snapped to attention and began to talk of contesting the election. They charged that the 1901 local option law was unconstitutional, and that the Maricopa County election had been improperly conducted. In spite of all their rantings, prohibition routinely went

into effect on August 8, 1 9 0 2 .? Not until early in the following year did the saloon keepers of Maricopa County muster the strength to contest the local option election. In February, 1903, mandamus proceedings were begun by one saloon proprietor, Louis Melczer, to force the sheriff to issue him a license to sell liquor in the new prohibition district. Melczer contended that the 1901 local option law was unconstitu­ tional and that the Maricopa election had been conducted irregularly in several particulars. Judge Kent** of the *7

^In several polling places in the county, the final counting of votes was a comedy of errors. One election board locked all the ballots in the ballot box and then slipped the key in the slot. In another precinct, the returns and all other election records were tied to the outside of the box, and the key was locked up inside of it. One member of the Board of Supervisors was said to have commented wryly that prohibition had not been estab­ lished too soon in those precincts. Arizona Republican. July 9, 1902. 7Ibid. , August 7, 1902. ^Edward Kent went on to serve ten years as chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. He was born in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1862. The son of a politician who became governor of Maine, Kent was graduated from Harvard Univer­ sity and attended Columbia Law School. Arizona: The 6 6 district court reviewed the second charge and found that the publication of the order of election had been defec­ tive, that the return of the ballots was irregular, and that the canvass of ballots by the Board of Supervisors was improper. On these grounds the judge ruled that the local option district ceased to exist. Saloons could once again open their doors.^ In the early years of the century Arizona crusaders experimented with new techniques of warfare in their battle for social reform. Arizona club women banded together in November of 1901 and formed the Arizona Federation of Women* s Clubs to achieve "mutual inspiration and concerted action" among the women's organizations of Arizona. Although the leaders of the Federation hoped to steer clear of strictly political issues, the organization did occasionally involve itself in the reform controversies of the period.At this time also the WCTU embarked on what it considered a "hard-hitting" program to expand its sphere of influence. Each local union was required to hold at

Youngest State. Ill, pp. 376-377. 9Arizona Gazette. March 8, 1903. 3-0Margaret Wheeler Ross, The Tale is Told. A History of the Arizona Federation of Women's Clubs and its Forerunners, n. ,p., n. d., p. 371. 67 least four "Gospel Temperance" meetings annually to induce church-goers to join the temperance crusade. Great emphasis was put on juvenile work, with special stress on encouraging young people to sign the abstinence pledge. As a charitable project for the year, WCTU women visited county jails, Indian schools, and even the Indian reser­ vations; wherever they went, they distributed temperance literature and Bibles.Arizona prohibitionists boldly entered the political arena in 1900 when one of their number ran for d eleg a te to Congress. Although he received only 292 of the 16,620 votes cast, the drys refused to be discouraged.in the 1902 territorial convention of the Prohibition Party held in Phoenix, a platform was written which was designed to attract Populists as well as Pro­ hibitionists. It denounced drinking and gambling and advocated the initiative, referendum, direct election of all public officials, and government ownership of public u tilities.13 By acclamation, the convention nominated Ostero Gibson of Tombstone as its delegate. Gibson and

U Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual WCTU Convention. 1901 (Phoenix, 1902), WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. l^Joseph F ish , "The H istory o f Arizona." A type­ s c r ip t copy o f which w as.used at Mathews Library, Arizona State University, p. 706. 1901 appears to be the first year that a Prohibitionist ran for a major political office in the territory. 13Arizona Republican. September 24, 1902. 6 8 subsequent Prohibition candidates suffered crushing defeats 14 in their bids for office, but the Prohibition Party remained intact throughout the territorial period and continued to broadcast its message of reform. Territorial crusaders were by now thoroughly convinced that their most effective vehicle was legislative action. These agitators also began to work on the muni­ cipal level to effect minor reforms. In May of 1901 the Phoenix City Council passed statutes making it a mis­ demeanor for women to be employed in places where intoxicating liquors were sold. This ruling ended the careers of untold numbers of women "entertainers." These women vigorously attacked the ordinance and, on their last nights of saloon employment they belted out songs such as "The Holy City" and "I'm Old and Only in the Way."^ A moral spasm hit Flagstaff in February, 1902, when the city

^ O stero Gibson, born in M issouri in 1871, came to Arizona in 1883. For a time Gibson was a preacher in the Methodist-Episcopal Church, but later gave this up and estab­ lished a law practice in Willcox and Tombstone. From March of 1893 to September of 1895 he served as clerk of the Coconino County Court, and later as D istrict Court Commis­ sioner. Gibson was a prominent member of the International Order of Good Templars and served as Chief Templar. In 1902 he received 223 of the 19,788 votes cast for delegate. He was put up for the same o f f ic e in 1904 and received 125 votes which left him fourth in a field of five candidates. McClintock, The Youngest State. Ill, pp. 363-364; Fish, "The History.of Arizona," p. 706...

^M iller, Arizona Cavalcade, p. 194. 69 fathers passed ordinances prohibiting women from visiting saloons or gambling houses, and outlawing gambling from 1:00 to 6:00 in the morning.^ In 1902 the saloon license question was taken up in Tucson. Motivated by an act of 1893 which allowed incorporated cities to license, tax, regulate, prohibit, or suppress the selling of intoxicating 17 liquors, the city council that fall gave local residents the opportunity to decide if municipal liquor licenses should be raised to $150 per quarter. The saloon men of the city campaigned desperately against the proposed increase and plastered banners throughout town proclaiming "Equal rights to all. Vote no." Election day came, the votes cast, and the saloon men and other low license supporters emerged victorious. Only 236 voters favored high license while 475 opposed it.^^ By 1903 the women of the territory were once again anxious to confront the legislature with the suffrage question. The WCTU by this time had become closely involved in the crusade for equal rights. Frances Willard Munds of

Arizona Daily Star. February 20, 1902. 17Session Laws of the Eighteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1895. n. d., n. p ., p . 65. 1**Arizona Daily Star. October 4, 1902. Tucson, which had one been the territorial temperance stronghold, had gradually become insensitive to the prohibitionist pleadings. The local WCTU chapter fell inactive at the turn of the century and was not revived until 1908. 7 0 Prescott, a distant relative of the national temperance leader, was director of suffrage work for the WCTU. ^ in 1902 she took a poll to determine just how many Arizona residents favored suffrage. Her tabulations showed that more than 1,500 citizens of the territory considered themselves ardent suffragists. Under the supervision of Mrs. Munds, franchise departments were established in all but two lo c a l WCTU chapters.The Arizona Equal Suffrage Association, s till under the whip of Mrs. Hughes, now galloped ahead into all parts of the state. At their third biennial convention held in January, 1903, the suffragists took an unanimous stand in favor of enactment of an equal 21 franchise law by the next territorial legislature.

^Frances Willard Munds was born in 1868 in Sacra­ mento, California. As a child she came to Arizona with her parents who settled in the Verde Valley. She became asso­ ciated with the WCTU, but soon became convinced that women's influence regarding any moral question could be made effec­ tive only through equal suffrage. She did not abandon with the work entirely, but in 1900 she became corresponding secretary of the Arizona Equal Suffrage Association. She worked diligently until 1912 when suffrage became a reality in Arizona. At that time Mrs. Munds was serving as president of the organization. In the first election after suffrage, Mrs. Munds became State Senator from Yavapai County. Arizona Magazine "Our Woman Senator," V, no. 4 (February, 1915), p. 4; File.of Joel Willard, APHS. ^ Minutes of the 1902 WCTU Convention (Phoenix, 1903). 21•Phoenix Gazette. January 20, 1903 7 1

The campaign of 1903 was the most spirited and the most successful effort made by the suffragists up to that 22 time. Several weeks before the legislature convened a veteran suffrage campaigner from Kansas, Dr. Frances Woods, came to Arizona to lay the groundwork for battle. She consulted with most of the members of the legislature and extracted promises that they would exert their influence in the proper direction. When the lawmakers assembled, only a few new votes were needed in each house to insure victory for woman su ffrage.^3 In the Assembly, an "Act Defining the Rights of Women" was introduced by T. J. Morrison, a Yavapai County Democrat. Very little controversy, but torrents of purple oratory, preceded the passage of this b ill in that chamber 9 / by a comfortable margin of eighteen to seven. In the Council, however, the proposal was impeded by haggling. For the b ill to emerge victoriously from that body, the suffragists knew that they would have to bargain with

22Letter of Frances Willard Munds to Colonel James McClintock dated April 4, 1915. McClintock Collection, 'IWoman Suffrage" file , Phoenix Public Library. ^Harper, History of Woman1 s Suffrage. VI, p. 11. 24jQumal of the Twenty-Second Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, n. d., n. p ., p. 239. 7 2 Governor Alexander 0. Brodie^** and other backers of the controversial "Cowan Eight-Hour" b ill. The suffragists did finally agree to support the Eight-Hour b ill as soon as their equal rights b ill had passed the Council and had been signed by the governor. The governor, who ardently championed the Eight-Hour law, had promised the suffrage lobbyists that he would sign the equal rights b ill if it were passed by both chambers o f the le g is la tu r e . The woman suffrage supporters were confident they had a sure victory for their cause. When the woman suffrage b ill did come to a vote in the C ouncil, i t triumphed by a two to one m ajority. The < suffrage supporters were ecstatic, but the trouble began when the Cowan b ill was allowed to pass immediately after the woman suffrage victory. The suffrage forces had inadvertently relinguished their weapon with which to

O C » Alexander 0. Brodie was born in New York in 1849. After h is graduation from West P oin t in 1866 he was s t a ­ tioned at Camp Apache, Arizona, for three years. When this duty ended he resigned from the Army and left Arizona, but returned in 1883. A Republican, he served as Recorder of Yavapai County from 1893 to 1895. Three years later he emerged as the principal organizer of the Arizona con­ tingent of volunteer cavalry in the Spanish-American War, and served as major o f the "Rough Riders" in Cuba under Theodore Roosevelt and Leonard Wood. In 1902 he was appointed governor of Arizona by his friend President Roosevelt, but resigned in 1905 to become Assistant Chief of Records and Pensions in Washington, D. C. Historical and Biographical Record of the Territory of Arizona, pp. 484-487; Arizona, the Youngest State. II, p. 354. 73 browbeat the governor.^6 Though they still clung to the hope that Brodie would sign the b ill into law, other forces in the territory worked fast and furiously to influence the governor against the woman suffrage b ill. Saloon and gambling men in Phoenix and P r e sc o tt ra ised large sums of money to finance a flood of telegrams from 27 all over the territory urging a veto of woman suffrage. Tension increased and speculators tried to foresee the course of action of the executive. After two days of deliberating, Governor Brodie returned the b ill with his veto on March 19. Such action, he believed, did not lie within the sphere of legislative power. As evidence, he pointed to the Organic Act of the territory which gave the lawmakers the power to act on all subjects not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. He contended that the legis­ lators, in granting suffrage to women, had gone beyond the United States Constitution which certainly did not antici- pate such a monstrosity as woman suffrage.^ Brodie1s explanation of his veto was immediately assailed by members of the legal fraternity. William

Z^The account of this trade is reported by Frances Munds in a letter to Colonel KcClintock written in February 1915. It is verified by contemporary accounts such as one appearing in the Arizona Daily Star. March 20, 1903. 27Ib id . . March 19, 1903.

28Arizona G azette. March 20, 1903. 7 4 Herring, attorney, legislator and head of the Arizona bar, wired Brodie that the b ill was entirely within the bounds of the Organic Act. Other lawyers pointed out that a j u s t ic e o f the t e r r it o r ia l Supreme Court, Richard E. Sloan had ruled that the legislature could confer the right of franchise upon the women of the territory.^9 in the Assembly an attempt to override the governor's veto failed by an eight to fourteen vote.^® Once again the suffragists had been a hair's breadth from victory, but were foiled by greater machinations than they could control. In Maricopa County, residents had not heard the last of prohibition. After the 1902 election had been declared inoperative, temperance backers began to push for another local option election. They finally did succeed in getting the necessary petitions circulated, signed, and submitted to the Board of Supervisors. After considerable procrasti­ nation the Board called an election for August 7 in essentially the same areas as for the 1902 election.31

29Arizona Daily Star. March 20, 1903. 1 3n It is most unlikely that the governor's veto was sustained because the legislators were in agreement with his legal theorizing on the constitutionality of suffrage legislation, tfore than likely the legislators were happy to reconsider their original vote on the matter. There had long been the contention that the Assembly had passed the b ill to put the council on the spot. Arizona Gazette. March 20, 1903.

•^Arizona Republican. July 28, 1903. 7 5 Once again there was no pre-election excitement or agita­ tion concerning probable prohibition. The majority of voters ' in the affected areas were prudent farmers who did not need to be convinced that drinking was a dangerous and debili­ tating vice. When the day of the election came, prohibition once again was approved.. This time the margin of victory was 315 to 152. The saloon-keepers, who hoped to use the latest election as a means of testing the constitutionality of the 1901 local option law, again brought mandamus pro­ ceedings against the sheriff. Cfrice again, however, the district court overlooked the question of constitutionality; but it declared that the 1903 election had been improperly conducted in the matter of canvassing and publishing of results, and voided the act. For the second time, then, prohibition had slipped out of the grasp of Maricopa temperance agitators. In October of 1904 the citizens of western Graham County embarked upon the.business of abolishing the liquor t r a f f ic in th e ir area. The movement there was le d by Mormons who, by reason of their religious teachings since childhood, believed that drinking was a vice which could only lead to physical and spiritual degeneration. Ostera

^ Arizona Republican. August 9, 1903. 33 Arizona G azette. October 30, 1903. 76 Gibson, acting as a representative of the prohibitionists, presented the petitions requesting local option to the Graham County Board o f Supervisors on October 9 . The Board was anxious to avoid fu tu re le g a l com plications and ca re­ fully scrutinized the petitions. In the end the supervi­ sors declined to order the election because the petitioners had not described by meters the district which they desired for the election. Not until the following year was another petition presented in Graham County. After weeks of soul searching, the prohibitionists of that county now decided that Solomon- ville should not be included in the local option district. Solom onville was the stronghold - a very weak one, to be sure - of the wet forces of the county, and its citizens scorned the idea of prohibition so completely that it seemed a useless effort even to attempt battle there. Thus, when th e second p e t itio n was f ile d , on ly th e towns of Safford, Layton, Thatcher, Pima, Central, Eden, Hubbard, and Mathewsville were included. This constituted the area between Solomonville and Fort Thomas. In many precincts of the Graham County's local option district, the election of 1904 was a matter of much

^(Solomonville)Arizona Bulletin. October 9, 1903. 35Ibid.. January 15, 1904. 7 7 interest. At Eden, prohibition was vigorously opposed by Alexander Boss, the proprietor of a recently completed hotel. Nineteen votes were cast for prohibition while fourteen went against it. Because a majority of two- thirds was necessary, however, local option was defeated in that precinct. The real battleground in the Graham County contest was Safford. Businessmen there were loud in their denunciations of prohibition, contending that if Safford went dry it could never become the county seat since no person of sound mind would choose to do business in a dry town. On election day, February 12, the saloons of the town flourished despite the law prohibiting liquor sales on the day of balloting. By the end of the day, 191 citizens had come to the polls; 109 of them voted for prohibition and eighty-two against it. In Safford, as in Eden, prohibition leaders had failed to gain two-thirds 36 of the votes. All other towns in the local option district went dry by overwhelming majorities. 37 The editor of the Solomonville Arizona Bulletin assessed the election and declared that the backing of the

n /f Ibid.. February 12, 1904. *^At Pima, the vote stood at 102 for prohibition and one against; at Thatcher, 113 for and eleven against; C entral, tw en ty -six for and two a g a in st, and C urtis eleven for and one against. Arizona Daily Star. February 14, 1904. 78 tbrrnons was the major reason for the v ic to r ie s o f p ro h ib i­ tion. The church, he observed, had initiated the fight, and its local leaders were the foremost campaign directors. Furthermore, prohibition carried overwhelmingly in the completely tformon areas, whereas in Safford and Eden, where the church was not so dominant, local option was narrowly defeated. The editor concluded that the Graham County election was a foreshadowing of what inevitably would happen

O Q in other Mormon-dominated communities. The reform forces in the territory badly needed a boost by 1906. By now prohibitionists had become entirely discouraged with the local option law because it required the nearly impossible majority of two-thirds to effect prohibition. There was no point, they contended, in waging intensive campaigns in areas where there was not already strong sentiment for prohibition. Thus the campaigns had been limited to rural areas or precincts dominated by the tbrmon church. Furthermore, the legislature had turned a deaf ear to all pleas for curtailment of gambling, high license legislation, woman suffrage, and stricter liquor laws. The Woman's Christian Terrperance Union had ceased to grow spectacularly, and by 1906 many local unions were withering on the vine. The fervor of the whole reform

^ Arizona Bulletin. February 19, 1904. 39 Minutes of WCTU Convention. 1906. 79 movement in Arizona had grad u ally cooled to such a degree that it seemed as though future agitation was futile. Arizona reformers received the needed spark early in 1906 with the visit to the territory of W. W. Havens, superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League in New Mexico. By this time the Anti-Saloon League had grown to be the nation's most powerful prohibition pressure group. The League had originated in Oberlin, Ohio in 1893, at the end of the second national prohibition wave. The League did not in s is t upon abstinence pled ges from i t s members, but rather operated through political machinery toward the abolition of all traffic in liquor. The rapid national growth of the Anti-Saloon League reflected, in part, the strength of the institutionalized groups, primarily Protestant churches, around whose tangent r e la tio n s i t was form ed.^ As soon as Havens arrived in Arizona he concen­ trated his entire efforts on revitalizing the temperance forces and organizing vigorous new groups to extend the prohibition crusade. He sounded the great trumpet of revolutionary reform with such gusto that scores of

^I’5erz, The Dry Decade, pp. 8-9; Peter Odegard's book Pressure Politics, the Storv of the Anti-Saloon League (New Y ork,1928) is undoubtedly the best wark on the A iti- Saloon League, its background, goals and achievements. Although the book is thoroughly documented, it is marred by a complete lack of sympathy with temperance goals. 8 0 formerly apathetic citizens were inspired to take action. All over the territory chapters of the Anti-Saloon League were born as exhilarated temperance agitators learned the rudiments of high-powered pressure politics.With the birth of the Anti-Saloon League in the territory, the older reform groups threw off their funeral shrouds and began campaigning with renewed energy. The reform forces of Arizona were champing at the b it and anxious for a ctio n by th e time the Twenty-Fourth Legislative Assembly convened in 1907. Governor Joseph H. 43 Kibbey spurred the cause along with a message to the legislature in which he dwelled upon public morals.^ The lawmakers of that session were more receptive to the *I,

^ Arizona Daily Star. March 13, 1906. ^ Ibid.. April 2, 1906. 43joseph H. Kibbey arrived in Arizona from Indiana in 1888. The following year he was appointed justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, and served four y ea r s. In 1902, while serving as a state councilman, he established the Salt River Valley Water Users Association. In 1904 he was appointed attorney general and served until President Theodore Roosevelt appointed him territorial governor in March, 1905. Arizona Magazine. "The Builders o f a S tate," I, No. 3 (August, 1910), p. 7. k ib b e y recommended the enactment o f a law rep ea l­ ing the provision for licensed gambling. He urged legis­ lation to prohibit women from frequenting or being employed in places where intoxicating liquors were sold. He recommended th a t the s a le o f tobacco to minors be p ro h ib ited , and saloons be required to close from twelve midnight to five o’clock daily and all day on Sunday. Arizona Daily Star. January 23, 1907. 8 1 pleadings of the governor on the cause of reform. High license trends across the territory^ had an effect with the lawmakers, who now raised the price for a liquor license to $300 for all persons who disposed of intoxicants in quantities of less than one quart.^ Other testimony to the fact that 1907 was a year for reformers was the passage of a law preventing women from frequenting or being employed in saloons. Furthermore, a b ill was brought before the legislature which would totally prevent the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages in the territory. This, the first comprehensive prohibition measure ever proposed in Arizona, was not given serious consideration in either chamber, but a scattering of interest in each house pointed hopefully to the future.^ The prohibition proposal, the high license move, and the act barring women from saloons were ample indica­ tion that the reform trend was riding a high wave in Arizona.

45 In late 1905 the city of Phoenix raised its liquor licenses from $200 to $1,000 annually. Tucson had followed the high license lead of Phoenix and raised saloon licenses to $600 annually. ^ Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty- Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1907 (Phoenix. 1907), p. 34. The measure was introduced by Councilman G. W. P. Hunt and passed both chambers by sub­ stantial majorities. Journals of the Twenty-Fourth Legis­ lative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona (Phoenix, 1907), pp. 23, 53, 156. ^ K e lly , Legislative History of Arizona, p. 256. 8 2 The reform movement made s t i l l another s ig n ific a n t advance in 1907 with the passage of an anti-gambling law. The sentiment for such legislation had long been evident in the territory, and during these first few years of the tw en tieth century the demands for change in the p o lic y on gambling had become increasingly more insistent. In 1904 the Federation of Women's Clubs of Arizona considered the gambling issue and encouraged abolition of gambling on the municipal level.^ Ifethodist-Episcoal churchmen at their 1905 conference, urged territorial lawmakers to pass anti-gambling legislation.^ In Tucson and Phoenix games of chance were the subject of much political specu­ lation.^® By 1905 the anti-gambling sentiment was crystal­ liz in g , and when the le g is la tu r e o f th a t year took up the question there was a heated battle on the floor. The b ill finally met its death in a pigeonhole after being strangely referred to the unsympathetic Committee on Mines and Mining."5*’

^ Arizona Daily Star. November 16, 1904. 49Ibid., October 8, 1905. 50Over a great deal of opposition the Tucson city council, in January of 1905, passed an ordinance fixing gambling licenses at $250 per month. Arizona Daily Star. January 3, 1905. In Phoenix anti-gambling became the major issue in several city elections. Ibid,., May 18, 1905. 51Ibid. , February 25, 1905. 83 By 1907 the movement for a b o litio n o f gambling had taken on so much momentum that territorial legislation to th a t end was in e v ita b le . The c i t i e s o f Tucson, Phoenix, Prescott, and Douglas, had already framed ordinances out- 52 1awing gambling within municipal lim its. Gambling was falling before no spasm of moral reform, but rather was succumbing to the natural growth of sentiment. An anti-gambling b ill repealing the license clause in the statutes was introduced in the Council by George W. P. Hunt o f G ila C ounty.^3 Though th ere was some lobbying against the b ill, no strong pressure was applied to thwart its passage. In the Council the b ill was approved by ten v o tes to two. I t then came before the Assembly, and the members of that body indicated their hearty blessing by passing it unanimously. When Governor Kibbey affixed his name to the bill, the death knell for legalized gambling was sounded. Gamblers in the territory had only until

•^Ibid. - February 1, 1907. 53 Hunt was destined to be one of the most signi­ ficant political figures in the history of Arizona. Born in Missouri in 1859, he arrived in Arizona in 1881. The c it y o f Globe was h is home, and there he was both banker and merchant. A staunch progressive Democrat, he served in the Legislative Council for six sessions. In 1910 he was elected president of the Constitutional Convention. Hunt very early was la b eled a humanitarian. Among other things, he was an ardent supporter of penal reforms. "The Builders of a State," p. 7. 8 4 March 31, 1907, to pack up their dice and cards and seek out unreformed areas of the West. The Anti-Saloon League, intensely active in Mari­ copa County since 1906, decided to battle once again in the hope of obliterating the county liquor traffic. In Janu­ ary of 1908 Dr. H. A. Hughes, president of the Arizona 55 Anti-Saloon League, filed a petition, signed by 504 persons, with the Board of Supervisors. By the time of this third local option election in Maricopa County, saloon men were tired of being attacked by a law which they believed unconstitutional. To combat the latest threat, the saloon men banded together and applied for a temporary injunction restraining the Board of Supervisors from calling the election. Judge W. H. Stilwell, as attorney

Arizona Daily Star. February 1, 1907. "The Transition of Southwest through Legal Abolition of Gambling," which appeared in Century Magazine in April of 1908, • presented a glamorized description of Arizona territorial life after the passage of the anti-gambling legislation. The author, B. W. Currie, contended that the entire social character of Arizona had changed and became solidly moral and devoid of major vices. ^ D r. Henry Adams Hughes was to be one o f the leading and most vociferous territorial prohibition agita­ tors. Born in 1848 in Elsworth, Ohio, he attended the University of Louisville, Jefferson Medical College, and Pennsylvania School of Anatomy. In 1886 he came to Phoenix from Glenrose, Texas, and set up practice. Dr. Hughes was fervently opposed to alcoholic beverages for medical and moral reasons. The doctor served for five years as presi­ dent of the Arizona Anti-Saloon League and twenty-five years as superintendent of Sunday school for the Southern Metho­ dist Church. A lifelong Democrat, he sought public office on several occasions. Southern Methodism in Arizona. 8 5 for the "Royal Arch," contended that the 1901 law was un­ constitutional because the legislature delegated to the Board of Supervisors the power to enact prohibition where no such constitutional authority existed. The saloon men contended that only the legislature itself might enact prohibition subject to the vote of the people in the districts affected. The request for the temporary injunc­ tio n was denied by Judge Kent o f the D is tr ic t Court. His action took the matter out of local hands and into the lap o f the Supreme Court o f the te r r ito r y . The case against the Board of Supervisors came before the Arizona Supreme Court in late January of 1908, only a few days after the first request for an injunction had been denied. The court heard the arguments of District Attorney G. P. Bullard^ for the prohibitionists and Judge Stilwell for the liquor interests, but adjourned without handing down a decision.Late in March the court

Obituary September 27, 1928, "McClintock Collection, Hughes f i l e ." 56 ' Arizona Daily Star. January 19, 1908. Arizona Republican. January 23, 1908. A Democrat, George Purdy Bullard first set up practice in Arizona in 1894. Six years later he was appointed city attorney for Phoenix. From 1908 to 1911 he served as district attorney. In 1912 he became attorney general of the State of Arizona. Bullard himself was not an active prohibitionist, but on several occasions he supported their cause. McClintock, Arizona. Ill, p. 12. -^Arizona Republican. January 23, 1908. 8 6 reconvened and took up the question of constitutionality of the 1901 local option law. With all justices concurring, The Supreme Court affirm ed th e a ctio n o f J u stic e Kent. The judges based their rulings on decisions of the United S ta tes Supreme Court which held th a t the powers o f the legislature had not been surrendered or wrongly delegated when that body authorized the calling of elections for the purpose of taking the expression of the voters. The United States Supreme Court contended that the actual power still lay with the legislature which had enacted the law if it should be adopted by voters of the district,*^ After nearly seven years the 1901 local option law had finally been declared constitutional. With their hopes high, the Maricopa County prohibitionists prepared for the next local option election. The b a ttle over le g a l te c h n ic a litie s did not end w ith the ru lin g o f th e t e r r it o r ia l Supreme Court. When the Board of Supervisors met in April to consider the request for local option, they were faced with the argument

A local option law in Texas had once been declared invalid on the grounds that it permitted an illegal dele­ gation of power. The United States Supreme Court, however, had reviewed the matter and sustained the authority of the legislature to delegate that power to county commissioners and supervisors. Because the Arizona local option law was framed on the lines of the Texas law, the Arizona Supreme Court applied th e United S ta tes Supreme Court ru lin g to the Arizona case. Arizona Republican. March 28, 1908; Tomb­ stone Epitaph. March 29, 1908. 8 7 that existing prohibition districts could not take part in the election. District Attorney Bullard opposed this contention on the ground that the board might include the whole county or any precinct or subdivision. He pointed out that voters in prohibition districts were still voters of the county, and therefore could not legally be disen­ franchised in a county election. With the announcement of the D istrict Attorney1s ruling, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors set the local option election for May 2.60 For the first time in Arizona, the prohibition question was fiercely debated by both sides. In the pre­ vious local option elections there had been very little open campaigning - most of the effort had been on the part of the prohibitionists who wanted to get as many temperance- oriented people to the polls as possible.• In 1908, however, campaigning was intense. One of the leading Phoenix papers, the Republican, opened its columns to all who wished to speak out on the question. Letters from interested citi- zends appeared almost daily in that paper. An inportant "first” in this campaign was the preponderance of talk about the economic aspects of prohibition instead of the hackneyed moral arguments. The specter of financial ruin

60^6 District Attorney based this argument on a decision rendered in a similar case arising in Texas. Arizona Republican. April 7, 1908. 8 8 was the most powerful weapon of the wets. County wets lay great stress on statistics designed to prove that prohibi­ tion would mean a loss of $30,000 to the city of Phoenix. This would r e s u lt in more unoccupied b u ild in gs and greater unemployment - two factors frighteningly detrimental to the future of the city .^ Both sides went wild with news­ paper advertisements, speeches, and rallies. By the hour of the election, the citizens of Maricopa County had been thoroughly saturated with reasons for or against prohibi­ tio n . On election day both sides were hard at work in last minute campaigning. The prohibitionists had a parade of twelve hay wagons and the Indian School band. The group visited every polling place, cheering and singing patri­ otic songs. The saloon men hired rigs to transport people to the polls. At the end of the day the champions of both sides could only wander about and speculate as to the out­ come of the election. The results dribbled in slowly, but before long it was apparent that the prohibitionists had not secured the necessary majority of two-thirds. A total of 1,721 wet votes had been cast against 1,935 dry ballots. A majority of 214 voters was in favor of prohibition, but local option was still defeated by a considerable margin.

61 Ibid.. May 1, 1908. 8 9 Rural areas, notoriously for prohibition, had manifested but little interest in the 1908 election, and the vote was lig h te r there than dry leaders had counted on. Worse still, the temperance vote in Phoenix sank to an all-time low in 1908.^ The economic argument of the wets had h it home, and the p r o h ib itio n is ts had fa ile d to show how the city could spare the dollars to be derived from liquor licenses. Over the following months the defeat of prohibition in Maricopa County was carefully studied by temperance agitators across the territory. Prohibitionists were now entirely disheartened with the 1901 version of local option. What was needed was a more effective law.

62Ibid.. May 3, 1908. CHAPTER IV

A TERRITORIAL CROSSFIRE

The year 1909 was a turning point in the Arizona prohibition crusade. The dry forces, thoroughly disen­ chanted with the 1901 local option law, won a major victory when the Tw enty-Fifth L e g is la tiv e Assembly amended the original provision by applying to it the principle of majority rule.^ The prohibitionists triumphed because they had acquired increased political ingenuity enabling them to turn a favorable political environment into victory for their cause. Many anti-prohibition-minded citizens and legislators, realizing that local option effected by a simple majority would greatly increase the possibility of a dry Arizona, had campaigned furiously against the measure. Eventually, however, the b ill slipped through both chambers by frighteningly scanty margins. In the Assembly the vote was thirteen to eleven, and in the O Council seven to five.

^"In 1907 a b ill was brought before the Legislative Assembly providing for majority determination of the prohi­ bition question. Many newspapers in the territory cam­ paigned vigorously for the proposed legislation, but it did not have strong enough backing from unified prohibition forces. The measure was speedily defeated. ^Arizona Daily Star. February 11, 1909. The simple majority local option law was Introduced by W. W. Pace of

90 91 The defeated anti-prohibition lawmakers consoli­ dated forces and concentrated their efforts on securing a "segregation" amendment to the new lo c a l op tion law. The wets were fighting to retain a semblance of strength and ascendancy in the battle against the now cocksure prohibition forces. Because there was no provision for segregation in the Pace local option b ill just passed by the legislature, anti-prohibitionists resolved to make a last ditch effort to secure such a provision in an entirely new b ill. They strongly supported a measure separating incorporated cities and towns from the vote on prohibi­ tion in local option elections. Because of their dogged determinism and adroit political finagling, the wets won out and a simple plan of segregation was enacted. Local option elections could be held in whole counties, justice

Thatcher, Saloon forces lobbied frantically for the defeat of the bill, but could not stem the tide of prohibition sentiment. In the Council, Kean St. Charles was the hero of the day when he cast the deciding vote for the new local option law. He declared that many residents of his county had threatened him with financial ruin if he supported the b ill. He dramatically announced that his wife had told him, "Vote for the b ill. If you want to do something for your wife and children, oppose the saloon. If need be, I w ill gladly starve with you." Ibid.. February 21, 1909. 3The segregation amendment was like the provision in the 1901 local option law which theoretically allowed incorporated cities to be wet while the entire surrounding area was dry. Ardent prohibitionists opposed segregation because of the nearly impossible problems of enforcement. Saloon owners, especially those in the cities, believed that the segregation feature of the 1909 law was its only redeeming feature. 9 2 precincts, or other prescribed political subdivisions, but the vote of incorporated cities was to be counted sepa­ rately.^ With the passage of the segregation law, saloon men breathed a sigh of relief. They believed that they still had some protection against the shadowy spectre of prohibition which was enveloping the territory. The two major p ro h ib itio n organ ization s in the territory, the WCTU and the Anti-Saloon League, were jubilant over the passage of the 1909 local option law. The W3TU now accellerated its program and issued territory­ wide appeals for consolidation to all friends of temperance. The ladies of the local unions presented skits, pageants, and parades centered around well-worn temperance themes. At their 1909 convention in Prescott, WCTU members were urged to be stout-hearted and persistent in future battles. The WCTU commanders, with supreme confidence in the worth of their cause, declared that prohibition was in the right and the forces of justice would ultimately prevail. They resolved to lend all their support to any territorial local option election.^

In the course of action on the difficult segregation problem, two bills were drawn up. The first of these was vetoed by Governor Kibbey, who felt that it would undermine the Pace local option law. Shortly after this veto, another segregation proposal was framed and passed both houses. The governor signed this b ill into law. For accounts of this complicated political tug of war see Arizona Republican or Arizona D aily Star from March 1 to March 20, 1909. "’The WCTU in 1909 had 13 unions and 324 members. By this time it was firmly pledged to suffrage agitation. At 9 3 By 1909 the Aiti-Saloon League had entrenched itself in the politics of Arizona prohibition. Though s till dependent on the New Mexico organization for finan­ cial support and general management, the Arizona wing of the League sponsored spirited rallies and indoctrination sessions. At an organizational meeting at Prescott in April, 1909, Dr. H. A. Hughes was chosen to head the p ro h ib itio n movement in Arizona. Eager p r o h ib itio n is ts devised new ways of conducting effective local option campaigns. To stimulate interest in the liquor question, the Anti-Saloon League printed thirty thousand cards ad­ vising the voters of Arizona of the action by the 1909 legislature regarding prohibition. Like the UCTU, the Anti-Saloon League pledged to involve itself in all local option elections in the territory.^

the twenty-fifth annual convention held in Prescott, Laura Gregg of the National Woman Suffrage Association spoke to the ladies on the close correlation of the temperance and suffrage battles. Minutes of the 25th Annual WCTU Convention (Phoenix, 1909); Prescott Journal- Miner ♦ October 7, 1909. ^According to the Anti-Saloon League Year Book of 1909, Arizona was desperately in need of aggressive leadership if it was to overcome the liquor element. Their tabulations showed that there was one liquor dealer to every 133 territorial citizens. Cherrington, Anti- Saloon League Year Book. 1909 (W esterville, Ohio, 1909), p. 21. 94 In August of 1909 citizens in the Lynx Creek section of Yavapai County resolved to purge the Walker and Kirkland mining districts of saloons. The temperance men of those areas insisted that they were not opposed to the consumption of alcohol per se, but rather objected to the presence of saloons and the practice of public drinking. The required number o f v o ters - th ir ty -se v e n in the Walker district and thirty Kirkland citizens - signed petitions requesting the election. These were duly processed by the Yavapai Board of Supervisors which set the election for early September. As delineated in the peti­ tion, prohibition would be imposed in a strip approximately four miles long and five miles wide; it would, therefore, wipe out all liquor interests in a radius of two miles on either side of Walker, the principal mining camp of the area.^ Because the population of the two districts was so limited, the necessary number of signatures for the petitions was mute testimony that prohibition would certainly prevail. With no campaigning, the drys emerged victorious. In the Kirkland district the drys won by a margin of twenty- three to six, and in Walker by thirty-four to six.**

^Prescott Journal Miner. August 21, 1909. 8Ibid., August 21, 1909. 95 Shortly after the election in the Walker and Kirkland districts, citizens of Humboldt and Mayer decided to try their luck at ousting saloons in their area. Petitions were promptly circulated and signed, but upon presenting them to the Board of Supervisors the dry representative, N. A. Vyne, candidly confessed that the newly proposed local option district - as well as those already established - were null and void.^ Vyne asserted that valid local option elections could only be held in entire counties, incorporated cities, in justice precincts, or in school d i s t r i c t s . ■ The Mayer, Humbold, Walker, and Kirkland local option districts, he claimed, fell into none of these categories. Vyne contended that the contro­ versy had come about because of the unlawful failure of the Board to divide the county into local option precincts. He intimated that mandamus proceedings would be instituted to compel the supervisors to obey the law. The Yavapai Board of Supervisors was in a quandary about the course to take concerning the canvassing of the Walker and Kirkland local option ballots. One supervisor declared th a t i f the e le c tio n was i l l e g a l th ere was no need to canvass and publish the results. Another was of the opinion that the canvassing of votes would have no bearing

^Ibid. . September 6, 1909. 9 6 whatever on the Legality of the election.in the end the supervisors decided to wait for a mandamus action compelling them to canvass the votes or set up the pres­ cribed precincts. The Kirkland citizens, incensed by the lacka­ daisical attitude of the Board of Supervisors, raised a purse of $250 to take the matter to court.^ With Grant Carter of Kirkland Valley as their spokesman, they filed a petition in the District Court asking for a writ of mandamus. The court reviewed the case, acknowledged that the Walker and Kirkland districts were legitimate local option districts, and then issued the writ compelling the Board of Supervisors to canvass and proclaim the election results immediately. The determined citizens of the two small districts had weathered one of the many storms which often blew up to impede the course of local op tion elections.For the time being that part of Yava­ p a i County was dry.

^ Ib id . . November 6, 1909. H-Ibid.. October 8, 1909. ^ Ibid.. October 16, 1911. The citizens at first had considered talcing no action on the matter in view of a proposed local option election for the entire county. When this failed to materialize, the voters decided to take th e ir money and go to co u rt. ^ Ibid., November 14, 1909. While the Kirkland- Walker hassle was in full swing, representatives of the Anti-Saloon League were shuttling about Yavapai county organizing local branches and attempting to stimulate the 9 7 Not until 1910 were the Walker-Kirkland d iffi­ culties ultimately resolved. Earlier in the year William Gronlund, a saloon-keeper from the Walker district, applied to the Supreme Court of the territory for a writ of habeas corpus. Gronlund contended that the 1909 election had been improperly conducted. Although he denied that he was attacking the 1909 local option law, Gronlund implied in his charge that the law was so worded that an election could not be held under it which would be in conformity with general election laws. The t e r ­ r i t o r ia l Supreme Court reviewed the ca se, but expressed doubt that it had the power to inquire into election proceedings. The writ of habeas corpus was denied. In November the Gronlund case was f in a lly reviewed by the District Court. At this point the principal question was whether or not a re-registration of voters was necessary before a local option election. The con­ census of the justices was that a local option election was neither a general nor a special election in the usual interest in a county-wide election. Plans were drawn up by N. A. Vyne, Dr. H. A. Hughes, and o th e r s. In the end the Yavapai election was called off, and attention was given to the forthcoming election in Cochise County. ^•^Prescott Journal Miner. January 21, 1910. 15Ibid.. January 22, 1910. 9 8 sense of the terms, and therefore a re-registration affecting less than an entire county was not necessary The 1909 prohibition election was upheld. After many months of unrest, the Walker-Kirkland election difficul­ ties were finally and completely resolved. The 1909 local option law stimulated drys in all comers of the territory to stir up new sentiment. Even in Cochise County, often considered one of the roughest and most morally backward areas in the territory, anti­ saloon sentiment welled up and flooded the county with prohibition propaganda and threats. In January of 1909, even before the local option law had been passed, the drys in Cochise were active. In Bisbee they hounded the city council to close all saloons from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily and to order the removal of screens from saloon windows and doors so that there might be an unobstructed view of such places from the streets. Anti-saloonists in Tombstone also labored for longer closing hours.^ By March of that year the Anti-Saloon League was in full operation in Cochise County. A house-to-house canvass was made to ascertain the number of voters who could be counted on if a local option election were called. Although it was

16Ibid., October 23, 1910. •^Tombstone Enitanh. January 7, 1909. 99 generally conceded that the prohibitionists would be hard- pressed in their efforts to dry this county, the liquor people were nevertheless unnerved by the forceful cam­ paigning of the Anti-Saloon League. By October the dry elements of southeastern Arizona had hammered long enough for minor reforms, and were now ready to undertake their ultimate plan to stamp out completely the liquor traffic in wild and wooly Cochise County. Ostero Gibson, the longtime prohibitionist from Tombstone, acted in behalf of the Anti-Saloon League and presented a local option petition signed by 476 residents I Q to the Board of Supervisors. 7 The Supervisors fixed the date of the county-wide election for January 26, 1910 and ordered a new registration of county voters. The "Royal Arch," now sufficiently alarmed by the prohibition threats,

^ Arizona Republican. March 1, 1909. In the early part of the summer of 1909 the Anti-Saloon League of Co­ chise County had a special conference with a noted prohibi­ tion agitator from Los Angeles. The county workers were urged to make constant attacks on the liquor element. In accordance with this instruction, prohibitionists gathered evidence again st a l l law-breaking saloons and demanded action on all infractions. Arizona Daily Star. July 14, 1909. ^ Bisbee D aily Review. November 3, 1909. The A nti- Saloon League was also backed by members of the WCTU and local Christian churches. The Cochise campaign was possibly the first local option effort to utilize effectively the combined forces of several pressure groups. 1 0 0 began making conciliatory gestures to the anti-saloon element. 20 At the urging of the saloon owners of the town, the Bisbee City Council passed an ordinance closing saloons from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Tombstone eventually followed suit in February of 1910 and closed drinking establishments from 1:30 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. In other parts of the county, saloon owners tightened up their businesses and made righteous displays of refusing liquor to minors and habitual drunkards. By t h is ta c t ic the Royal Arch hoped to demon­ strate that the liquor traffic could be effectively con­ trolled and regulated without resorting to such drastic 21 techniques as prohibition. The Cochise local option campaign was a fierce fight to the finish. "Superintendent" W. M. Burke of the Arizona Anti-Saloon League personally coached the united dry forces, teaching them the value of effective

Tombstone Weekly Epitaph. November 7, 1909. The "Royal Arch" was not a formally organized group in Cochise County or anywhere else in Arizona. It was merely the term often used by newspapers and anti-saloonists to designate those who were engaged in the liquor traffic. In Cochise County at this time, however, the liquor dealers actually did meet and draw up a d e fin ite plan o f a ctio n . ^ B isbee D aily Review. November 3, 1909 and Tomb­ stone Epitaph. February 6, 1910. The drys were not satisfied with the Bisbee or Tombstone ordinances. They thought 1:00 o'clock was too late and 5:30 or 6:00 too e a r ly . Furthermore, they demanded a. Sunday c lo sin g p e t i­ tion and the wets were thoroughly opposed to this. Bisbee Daily Review. February 3, 1910. 1 0 1 dissemination of prohibitionist propaganda.^2 The drys had another able captain in Eugene W. Chafin, who had been the national Prohibition Party candidate for President of the United States in 1908.^ Both Chafin and Burke took the stump and d eliv ered fie r y o ra tio n s on the liq u or cu rse. Their appeal was the old, often used, morality approach. Since liquor caused crime, disease, ignorance, poverty, and unhappiness, those who sought to stamp out saloons were directly aligned against these social evils.^ Strong sentiment existed in the incorporated cities of Douglas

^Although w. M. Burke was one of the original leaders in the Arizona Anti-Saloon League, and an extremely important man in the Arizona prohibition crusade, no biographical data could be found on him. Burke came to Arizona from California about 1908, apparently under the auspices of the National Anti-Saloon League. He at once began the. work of drumming up interest in prohibition. Throughout his career in Arizona, Burke was a highly controversial figure, fiercely hated by the drys. He was active in Anti-Saloon League work in Arizona until the enactment of prohibition. Eugene W. Chafin, temperance leader and two-time candidate for President of the United States, established a part-time home in Tucson in early 1908. A native of Wisconsin, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1875. Chafin was very active in the Good Templars and held high positions with that group. He was active in the prohibition party from 1884 to his death. In Arizona he took an active part in the politics of prohibi­ tion. Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, Dictionary of American Biography. IV, Part 1 (New York, 1957), pp. 590- 591. ”^Tn one of his speeches Chafin dwelt upon the scourge of the white plague of tuberculosis which he paralleled with the black plague of drunkenness. Chafin and Burke saw to it that quantities of temperance litera­ ture were distributed throughout the county. Tombstone Epjtanh Weekly. January 9, 1910. 1 0 2 and Blsbee. In Douglas, which lay on the Mexican border, the most telling anti-prohibitionist argument was that closing saloons in the town would only multiply the number in Agua Prieta, Mexico. Furthermore, the wets contended that the closing of saloons would deprive Douglas of $18,000 revenue collected annually from saloon licenses and from personal property owned by sa lo o n s. As many as twenty buildings would go vacant, and scores of men would be unem ployed.Letters predicting this were sent to practically every voter in the city. 26 The wet strength in Douglas was g r e a tly aided when the Douglas B aseb all and Amusement Company declared that it would halt all plans to sponsor a local ball club until prohibition had been 27 defeated. In Bisbee, then in a touchy financial predica­ ment, the wet forces used the economic approach to drive

^ Bjsbee Daily Review. January 7, 1910. 2^In the letter signed by "The Committee," one of the major questions put to the voters was whether the morals of the city would be benefited if boys and girls were able to go across the border into Mexico and visit the numerous, unregulated saloons. Bisbee Daily Review. January 22, 1910. The residents of Naco and Agua Prieta were reported to be anxiously awaiting the outcome of the election. They felt certain that their business would prosper if Cochise County went dry. Tombstone Enitanh. January 19, 1910. 27The b a seb a ll promotion company was a sto ck company, and it was reported that over 50% of the shareholders would not continue in the enterprise if the town went dry. Citizens of Douglas then began to fear that the annual golf tournament and the Fourth of July celebration would be ruined if the town went dry. Ibid.. January 22, 1910. 1 0 3 home their arguments against the enactment of prohibition. The Bisbee Daily Review vocalized the position of the anti­ prohibitionists, asserting that "honest morality and upright liv in g never came as a r e s u lt o f le g is la t io n , and personal 9 o rights can never be abrogated by sumptuary laws. By election day, January 26, 5,500 voters were 29 registered for the local option contest. Both sides campaigned frantically throughout the day. The Bisbee Daily Review, in last minute pleas urging the defeat of prohibition, contended that' local option was a desperate move to save the county from itself. Sentiments of Cochise voters were solidly welded by now.^0 When the complete results of the election were finally reported, it was obvious that the wets had achieved a more resounding victory than at any other territorial local option election in Arizona history. By a majority of 902 votes the Cochise

By 1909 the most effective appeals used by both wets and drys were economically oriented. In large measure moralistic-emotional appeal belonged to bygone days. Ibid.. January 20, 1910. on ' ?Ibid.. January 1, 1910* At one point in the campaign, W. M. Burke attempted to demonstrate that there was false registering. He picked an unfortunate case to make an example of in a young newspaperman. The plan back­ fired and succeeded only in making the drys look silly. Throughout the campaign the position of the Bisbee Daily Review on the liquor question was one of strict regulation. The paper was for high license, early closing, Sunday closing, and revocation of licenses in red-light d is t r ic t s . 1 0 4 31 prohibition drive had been crushed to defeat. On June 20, 1910 the citizens of Arizona received word of an event of monumental importance in the history of the territory. The United States Congress had passed an enabling act granting to the people of Arizona the right to form a constitution and state government prepara- 32 tory to admittance into the Union. Statehood had long been the goal of territorial leaders, and with its coming an entirely new approach to political problems evolved. Prohibition leaders now realized that the fate of their crusade could be decided at the constitutional convention. They nurtured high hopes that a suitable clause would be inserted in the constitution or that the question of statewide prohibition would be submitted to the people. The Anti-Saloon League was keenly cognizant of the potential power of the convention in reviewing the case for

31 The f in a l ta b u la tio n s showed 2456 wets and 1554 drys. Tombstone, Douglas, and Bisbee had gone wet by sizeable majorities. Only the incorporated Mormon town of Willcox had gone dry. The vote there was 79 to 19. (Willcox) Arizona Ranee News. February 4, 1910. on In the December, 1910, issue of Arizona appears an article ..by John Alden Reeves, entitled “Arizona's Statehood - The Constitutional Convention of Arizona.” Reeves gives a good account of convention proceedings. In that issue are also short biographical sketches of each of the delegates to the convention. Arizona: Statehood Magazine. I, No. 4 (December, 1910), pp. 12-14. 1 0 5 prohibition, and urged the voters to support only those candidates for delegates who favored writing prohibition and the initiative into the constitution. In the Arizona 33 Issue, the League's new monthly organ, temperance advo­ cates argued a case for the initiative based on the assumption that this political device was an inroad which could lead to the annihilation of Arizona saloons. Thus even if prohibition were not written into the constitution, the people could use the initiative power to write their own prohibition amendment. The Anti-Saloon League dogmatically asserted that those who opposed initiative and referendum ' o / favored saloons.

33 The Arizona Issue magazine was first published in January, 1910, just after Arizona became a separate Anti-Saloon League district from New Mexico. The magazine, which sold for fifty cents a year, was sub-titled "An Advocate of Christian Patriotism," and had as its motto: "The only solution to the problem.of the saloon is no saloon." W. M. Burke was the editor. The magazine was pure propaganda and ran some articles taken from national prohibition publications as well as reporting local prohi­ bition information. A few scattered copies of the Arizona Issue are to be found at Special Collections, University of Arizona Library, and in the Morris Goldwater Collection, Arizona Historical Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona. •^Arizona Issue. August, 1910, Phoenix, p. 3. The League endorsed candidates for delegate without regard to party affiliation. Only prohibition, initiative, and referendum stands mattered. Because Republicans were almost unanimously opposed to initiative and referendum, the Anti- Saloon League backed Democratic candidates. 1 0 6 In the Arizona Issue Superintendent Burke endorsed delegates to the constitutional convention and encouraged lobbying and petitioning the legislature for more reforms.3^ The Arizona League, like the national organization, was closely connected with Protestant churches. As the League became more powerful in Arizona, the churches were urged to take a stronger stand on prohibition. The Pres­ byterian, Methodist, and Baptist churches were united in the position that all Christian voters ought to support o £ temperance candidates. The Mormon church, which had strong pockets of power across the territory, resolved to use all its influence and energy to the end that prohibi­ tion might prevail. "The world must understand," its leaders declared, "that as a Church we stand undauntedly against the liquor traffic.The Christian church of Phoenix declared that the saloon was the greatest evil in Arizona and resolved to support those candidates for public

•^ Arizona Iss u e . August and September, 1910. ■^This statement appears in the Arizona Issue of October, 1910. The author has found no evidence elsewhere of such a stand by these churches. ~^At their regular quarterly conference held in September of 1910 the Mormons declared that they would cast off church members unless their saloon patronage ceased. Arizona Gazette. October 5, 1910. 1 0 7 office who opposed the sale of liquor.^ For territorial citizens in general, the position of candidates on the initiative and referendum was a major 39 criterion for supporting them. A prohibition stand, on the other hand, was not a significant issue in the election of delegates. A sure reason for this was that no candidate wished to place himself on record as being firmly committed to such a controversial measure as statewide prohibition.40 Regarding the initiative and referendum, Democratic candi­ dates almost unanimously favored these reforms, and Republican candidates in general opposed them on the grounds that only the legislature had lawmaking powers.41

O O °The church passed an elaborate resolution which employed the usual arguments against the saloon. The members pledged themselves to work and vote for abolition of the liquor traffic in Maricopa County and the entire territory. In addition, they drew up a two-part article for the constitution prohibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicants in Arizona. The resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote. Arizona Daily Star. July 17, 1910. ^Calvin N. Brice, "The Constitutional Convention of Arizona" (M. A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1953), p. 37. 40Ibid., p. 65. The Socialist party in Arizona supported prohibition in the constitution. The Anti-Saloon League, however, did not support any Socialist,candidates for delegate to the convention. This was no doubt because they knew that Socialists would not receive widespread support. ^Hftien the various county conventions met in August of 1910, trends concerning initiative and referendum were readily apparent. The Republican conventions in all counties except Santa Cruz went on record against initiative, referendum and recall. The Democratic territorial conven­ tion declared that the question of statewide prohibition 1 0 8 The election of delegates was a Democratic landslide; forty-one Democrats were seated against only eleven Republicans. Of the fifty-two delegates, no less than thirty-nine were pledged to support the initiative and referendum.^ This was clearly an indication that Arizona would have a progressive constitution. As soon as the constitutional convention got underway in Phoenix in October of 1910, it was apparent that the Democratic majority was receptive to the progres­ sive measures of initiative, referendum and recall which the Republic an minority denounced as "constitutional tinkering." Yet there was considerable controversy over such measures as the number of political subdivisions which should be specified and the percentage of voters needed to institute initiative and referendum proceedings.^ As adopted, the initiative and referendum provision dele­ gated to the citizens of towns and counties the use of these

should be submitted to the people for approval or rejection. Appendix B of Brice's thesis contains the platforms of the various county conventions. ^Brice, "The Constitutional Convention of Arizona," p. 37. ^Chapter Five of Brice's thesis, entitled "Direct Democracy," discusses the adoption of the in itia­ tive, referendum and recall in all its complexity. 1 0 9 powers on matters pertaining respectively to each.^ Ten percent o f the q u a lifie d e le c to r s was s e t as the number necessary to initiate a measure with fifteen percent needed to amend the constitution. Five percent of the qualified voters was necessary to employ referendum.^ In the fight to put prohibition into the constitu­ tion, sentiments of disapproval were prevalent. In fact, it was only through the sledge-hammer techniques of determined reformers that the prohibition question became an issue at the convention. WCTU members were unyielding in th e ir demands that a p r o h ib itio n cla u se should be in co r­ porated into the constitution. On October 28 a petition signed by 3,200 women of Arizona was read on the floor of the convention:

^The question of the districts in which the initiative could be applied became complicated largely because of the prohibition issue. Many felt that if the initiative powers were granted to the counties, incorporated cities would be put in an unfair position: their wishes would be subordinated to those of the county. This was e s s e n tia lly the same argument which was brought up in connection with the segregation policy in the local option laws. &bst prohibitionists favored use of the in it ia t i v e and referendum by the s ta te le v e l on ly, and opposed giving it to counties and towns. They reasoned that there might never be a unity of prohibition sentiment with localized segregation. Brice, "The Constitutional Conven­ tion of Arizona," pp. 38-44; Conklin, "The Development of the Constitution.of the State of Arizona" (M. A. thesis, USC, 1928), p. 50. 45 Constitution for the State of Arizona (Washington, 1911). 1 1 0 Knowing the open saloon to be th e curse o f thousands o f our s is t e r s , bringing shame and misery and poverty to them, and knowing also that the open saloon is the cause of three- fourths of the crime, poverty, insanity in our territory, and knowing that the awful danger of drunkenness threatens our children so long as the open saloon is allowed to exist in Arizona, and Being convinced that little relief will be afforded if the matter is left to the legis­ lature because of the notoriously unscrupu­ lous character of the saloon business and its influence with the legislatures, Therefore we, women of Arizona, helpless and without the ballot to protect ourselves and our children, do hereby respectfully petition you to incorporate in the Constitu­ tion as presented to the people an article forbidding the manufacture and sale of intoxi­ cating liquors in the State of Arizona.^ After this opening plea, the delicate prohibition question was shunted off on the Committee for Separate Submissions headed by an anti-prohibitionist, Thomas N. Wills of Pinal County.^ A Democrat lawyer from Phoenix,

^ Arizona Gazette. October 28, 1910. Lobbying for any measure or interest on the convention floor was prohibited. Pressure groups had to employ written commu­ niques and telegrams to attempt to influence the dele­ gates. Reaves, p. 12. ^ Minutes of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Arizona tPhoenix. 1910), pp. 197-198.The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who favored prohibition were defeated in their effort to secure a committee to deal specifically with the liquor question. Thus it was that the Committee on Separate Submissions became the one with which they were most actively involved. Others on that committee were E. A. Tovrea of Cochise County, J. J. Keegan of Gila who was said to be the only saloon-keeper at the convention, W. T. Webb of Pima, and Alfred Franklin of Maricopa. It was charged in the I l l Alfred Franklin, drew up the proposal providing that a separate prohibition article be submitted to the voters of Arizona for adoption or rejection. The article out­ lawed the manufacture and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the state.^ For some delegates to the convention, the principle of "separate submission" was merely a means o f evading the q u estio n . They intim ated that they could not deny citizens of the state the right to vote on prohibition for themselves. Thus, many dele­ gates who had previously declared themselves anti­ prohibitionists went on record for separate submissions.49 By taking this middle of the road, they hoped to avoid being labeled "undemocratic" by prohibitionists or "fanatical" by anti-prohibitionists.

Prescott Journal-Miner of October 16, 1910 that prohibi­ tion was betrayed by the president of the convention, George W. Hunt, when he set up the Separate Submissions committee. The paper also said that Wills bitterly opposed prohibition, as of course did Keegan. Tovrea was also an outspoken enemy o f dry law s. ^A n annotated copy o f the proposed amendment, as well as the material dealing with the constitutional convention, is in the Jacob Weinberger Collection, Special Collections, University of Arizona Library. 49Brice, "The Constitutional Convention of Arizona," p. 65. . 1 1 2 On November 17, the day set for the presentation of the report, the galleries were jammed with representa­ tives from the WCTU and Anti-Saloon League. The ladies once again attempted to win over the delegates by barraging them with petitions urging the passage of separate submis­ sion for prohibition. On the convention floor, there was a flood of oratory on prohibition in general and separate submission in particular. To the surprise of many confi­ dent prohibition lobbyists, however, the Committee of Separate Submissions recommended th at th e proposed submission of prohibition to the people be defeated.’*® When the vote was finally taken, separate submission did fail by a margin of thirty-three to f i f t e e n . Disgruntled prohibitionists blamed the weak-kneed politicians who feared the opposition of the saloon element. The Anti- Saloon League assailed all delegates who had voted against separate submission. The Phoenix headquarters of the organization drafted a resolution which stated: *II,

50 W ills, Keegan, and Tovrea signed the majority report recommending the rejection of separate submission, while Webb and Franklin wrote a minority report recommending that the matter be turned over to the people. "Complete Verbatim Report of Arizona Constitutional Convention, 1910," I I , Report o f November 17, 1910, p. 5. -*^For a complete account of the parliamentary maneuvering and convention debate on the separate submission matter see Brice thesis, pp. 66-69. ^ Arizona Daily Star. November 18, 1910. 1 1 3 All the Maricopa County delegation, con­ sistent with their principles, voted to let the people judge the merits and demerits of the saloon business. Thirty-three members chose in effect not to put the saloons in jeopardy by allowing the people to vote. They took upon themselves the right of suffrage upon the question of more interest to our c iti­ zens than nearly all others combined. . . . We depreciate the unfairness of those who have denied the public this right. ” Angry as they were, the prohibitionists recognized that the situation was not completely black because the adoption of initiative and referendum opened new doors of political action for the social crusaders of Arizona. The other major reform issue which cropped up in the Constitutional Convention was, of course, woman suffrage. By 1910 the suffragists had a hardy organiza­ tion in the territory, with a membership of more than three thousand. Frances Willard Hinds acted as chairman of the Territorial Central Committee, and under her were suffrage lead ers from every county and major c i t y . ^ On the first day of the convention, Phoenix was besieged by a mob of

CO This quotation is on p. 69 of Brice's thesis. He gives no citation for this statement. •^This information appears in a letter from Frances Willard Mends to James H. I-fcClintock in which the writer presents a short history of the Arizona suffrage movement. -In speaking of the Constitutional Convention, Mrs. Hinds declares that she was not in favor of making the effort to get a suffrage plank in the constitution; other lea d ers, however, f e l t th is was a v i t a l move, and went on with the campaign. Letter dated April 4, 1915. McClintock Collection, Phoenix Public Library. 1 1 4 shrieking suffragettes who scurried about the city demanding "equal rights for women." This stalwart suffragist lobby remained in town for the entire length of the convention and constantly badgered the delegates to write equal suffrage provisions in the constitution. The controversial suffrage question took on several guises at the convention. One of the first efforts to push through equal suffrage was made by P. F. Connelly, delegate from Cochise County and a locomotive engineer by trade, who proposed to submit the question of woman suffrage to both men and women at a special election held two years after the adoption of the constitution. This proposal was declared absurd and quickly d efea ted . Connelly was roundly denounced for his stand on the matter. From his constituents in Douglas came a telegram reading: "Yourpeople of Cochise County thank you for your introduc­ tion of the woman suffrage proposition. Do not come back

^ Arizona Daily Star. October 13, 1910. For the duration of the convention, the women's group across the te r r ito r y bombarded the d eleg a tes w ith a con stan t flow o f petitions and other types of propaganda. At one point every member of the convention was sent a postcard signed by Mrs. Munds. On the front of the card showed a seedy-looking drunk opposite a young mother. Beneath the picture were the words: "This man can vote, this woman cannot vote." Brice, "The Constitutional Convention of Arizona," p. 71. ^ Arizona Daily Star. December 4, 1910. -*7Brice, "The Constitutional Convention of Ari­ zona," p. 70. 1 1 5 to Douglas. You ought to be shot. We are very sorry that the recall is not in operation." Fred Colter of Apache County then put forth a straightforward equal suffrage proposition to forbid any discrimination at the polls on account of sex. His pro­ posal also provided that sex should not be taken into consideration in the election of state officials. When the Colter proposal was presented to the Committee on Suffrage, th a t body recommended i t s rejection.The Colter suffrage b ill came before the Committee of the Whole on November 11. A fter a heated three-hour d iscu ssio n the convention by a vote of twenty-eight to fifteen, indefinitely postponed the woman suffrage proposal.^9 Separate submission was the last-ditch effort of the s u ffr a g is ts . On November 17 the twin q uestions o f

CO °Before the committee rendered its decision ‘there was a hearing, and the leading advocates of suffrage from all parts of the territory came to present their views. Mcs. Hinds presided over the discussion. A woman from Miami, Mrs. J . S. Hopkins, spoke on b eh alf o f the house­ wives of the territory and presented her viewpoint that equal suffrage would be better for the state. Dr. Agnes Wallace of Prescott spoke for the professional women and told of the handicaps under which she labored because of lack of equal rights. Miss Laura Gregg of the national organization also spoke on the matter. Arizona Daily Star. November 5, 1910. •^Prescott Journal-Miner. November 12, 1910. 1 1 6 separate submission of woman suffrage and prohibition came before the Committee of the Whole. Many of the suffrage leaders, however, had lost all hope that the Constitu­ tional Convention would in any way support their efforts, and did not badger the delegates for separate submission. They believed that with the initiative they could easily bring the matter before the people at a time when condi­ tions would favor their cause.^ The committee for separate submissions presented its majority report, signed by W ills, Keegan, and Tovrea, who opposed turning over the suffrage question to the voters. Although there had been considerable sentiment in favor of separate submission, the measure was speedily defeated by a vote of thirty to nineteen.^ Some disappointment prevailed in the ranks, but still the lady agitators were certain that their wishes would eventually be fulfilled by the initiative.^ While the prohibition question was being bantered about in the Constitutional Convention, members of the WCTU and the Mormon church in Graham County consolidated *

^ Arizona D aily Star. November 12, 1910. 61 "Complete Verbatim of the Arizona Constitutional Convention, 1910,11 II. Report of November 17, 1910, p. 6. ^Gn November 29 the chaplain opened the session with a prayer that the constitution be approved by the people and President Taft, and that the delegates would reverse their views and provide for statewide prohibition and grant equal su ffra g e. Arizona D aily Star. November 29, 1910. 1 1 7 forces. Their aim was to employ the 1909 local option law to combat the liquor curse.^ With no difficulty, the necessary number of signatures was procured for the petitions. The Graham County Board of Supervisors set the local option election for October 17, 1910. In the weeks before the election, the drys waged a fierce campaign against the unorganized liquor interests. The Arizona Bulletin, published in Solomonville, declared that the Gila Valley must "smite the hideous Monster Demon Rum that lures victims through the open doors of the saloon to destruction.11 ^ The only uncertain spot in the county was Safford, where the wets used the familiar economic arguments to induce votes against local option. In the week before the election, a torrent of speeches flooded the county.^ *

^The two prime movers in the Graham County election were Bishop Welker of the Mormon church and W. W. Pace, a member o f that denomination and th e le g is la t o r who had sponsored the 1909 local option law. W. M. Burke of the Anti-Saloon League also came to the county to take part in the campaigning, but his role was overshadowed by the Marmon le a d e rs. Arizona B u lle tin . November 10, 1910. ^Arizona Bulletin. October 7, 1910. ^There was a running battle over the saloon question between the citizens of Safford and Solomonville. The businessmen of Safford maintained that people in Solomonville would actually vote against prohibition so that if Safford went dry its business would be diverted to Solomonville. The leaders in: Solomonville, however, contended that they fervently wished saloons all over the county to close. They too feared that other towns might remain wet and draw business away. Arizona Bulletin. July 16, 1909; October 7, 1910. 1 1 8 A former j u s t ic e o f the t e r r it o r ia l Supreme Court, Frederick S. Nave, declared that the money spent in one month in a Safford bar would be enough to start a library. "What is best," he asked, "a stomach full of booze or a • • z: z: c u ltiv a te d mind?" ° The spokesman o f the Mormons, Bishop J. R. Welker of Safford, reminded his church members that prohibition was of religious as well as political signi­ ficance, and urged them to vote with this in mind. On the Sunday before the election, all evening religious services were cancelled so that as many people as possible could attend a county rally in Safford. At this meeting Bishop Welker declared that as long as saloons were legal every hand in the te r r ito r y was sta in ed by the blood o f the victims of the inequity.^7 On October 17 local option carried overwhelmingly, and Graham became the first com­ pletely dry county in the territory. Six hundred eighty- one good people had washed their hands. 68

66 Ibid., October 14, 1910. 67Ib id . 68 In the entire county only 162 negative votes were cast. Safford was considered the wet stronghold, but it surprised everyone by turning in a dry vote of 107 to 81. In Thatcher the vote was 106 to 6 and in Solomonville 42 to 10. On December 3, 1910, all saloons closed and the entire county was dry. Arizona Issue. October, 1910, p. 5. 119 In Maricopa County, the Anti-Saloon League incited local prohibitionists to wage a blazing campaign early in 1911. Dr. H. A. Hughes presented petitions signed by over fiQ 700 voters to the Board o f Supervisors. y The League triumvarite - Burke, Dr. Hughes, and Mayor Christy^O - utilized as many techniques of persuasion as possible. The wildfire of campaigning was touched off by an impassioned speech given by the famous Southern evangelist and temperance lecturer, Joseph Smally. Mesmerized men and women in the audience signed statements attesting to their anti-saloon sentiments, and during the weeks of the campaign hundreds o f th ese names were prin ted in lo c a l newspapers.^ In the campaign of 1911 the Maricopa County wet forces organized for the first time. They decried prohibition with the argument that the real issue at stake was whether one man had the right to infringe upon the personal liberties of another.^2 Many businessmen in

Arizona Democrat. March 15, 1911. Lloyd B. C hristy was an 1890 graduate o f the University of Southern California. A resident of Phoenix and a successful businessman, he became vice-president of the C entral Bank o f Phoenix. He was a staunch Republican and was e le c te d mayor o f Phoenix in 1909. C hristy was a Methodist dedicated to social reform. ^ Arizona Gazette. April 1, 1911. 72 The Arizona Democrat was the loudest voice among Phoenix newspapers in the denunciation of county prohibi­ tion. This paper preached that local option was not a matter of saloons or no saloons, but rather personal liberty or dictatorship. 11A vote against prohibition is a 1 2 0 Phoenix were thoroughly shaken by the thought of municipal prohibition, which they believed would seriously depress the economic climate of the town. Stockholders in the Adams Hotel voted to stop construction on the new build­ ing until after the election. If the anti-saloonists were 73 successful, construction would be permanently halted. The WCTU members concentrated their efforts on recruiting support from the small towns and rural areas. The fervor of battle continued at high pitch until election day, April 18, 1911, when prohibition carried every district of Maricopa County except the incorporated city of Phoenix. Under the provisions of the 1909 local option law, Phoenix would be a wet oasis in the middle of a very dry desert.The prohibition leaders were not discouraged. They had hoped for total annihilation of saloons, but they had wiped out eighteen and that was enough for the time b e in g .^

vote for decency and law and order, it is a vote against graters and brooders, it is a vote to put an end to public agitation which is bringing shame and disgrace to the people of Phoenix.11 Arizona Democrat. April 13, 1911; April 17, 1911. 73Ibid.. March 30, 1911. ^ Arizona Gazette. April 19, 1911. 73Arizona Democrat. May 29, 1911. The Anti-Saloon League only a few days after the election threatened to nake another effort to dry up Phoenix. Dr. Hughes announced that a municipal local option election would be held at the earliest time favorable. Ibid., April 19, 1911. 1 2 1 In June, 1911 the Anti-Saloon League moved its center of agitation to Yavapai County. Superintendent Burke enlisted the services of the Reverend I. F. McKay, president of the local League, and N. A. Vyne, an attorney, who circulated local option petitions. No action was taken when these were first brought before the Board of Supervisors on June 7. One of the supervisors objected to several of the names which appeared on the petition, declaring that they should be thrown out and the local option matter dismissed. Meanwhile Vyne and McKay had obtained the names o f seventy-tw o more c itiz e n s who placed themselves on record for a local option election. Before the matter could be resolved, however. District Attorney H. D. Ross had to be called to render a decision. Seeing no formidable obstacle, the District Attorney ordered the Board to call the prohibition election at their next meeting.

Prescott Journal-Miner. July 8, 1911. At the meeting of the Board of Supervisors at which the local option election was set, one of the members declared that he was inalterably opposed to the petition. He declared that p ro h ib itio n would amount to fin a n c ia l ruin, and strongly urged that the election be refused. He still labored under the opinion that many names which appeared on the petitions were spurious. The Board spent four hours checking each name, and f in a lly decided th at an election would have to be held. Ibid., July 12, 1911. 1 2 2 Sentiment for prohibition in Yavapai County was not widespread. The newspapers ran periodic advertise­ ments depicting the unfortunate results of prohibition in Maine, Kansas, and other dry strongholds.^ The local t'KTU did not enter into the campaign in any flamboyant manner. The ministers of the county uttered no fulmina- tions against the liquor evil. A few nights before the election, set for July 29, the prohibitionists held a mass meeting in the P resco tt c it y p la za , and the saloon element met at the same time in the Elks Hall. In the course of the evening the lights all over town suddenly blinked out, and both groups, stirred to a frenzy, claimed that the opponents had deliberately ruined their meeting.'° On election day both sides scoured the town for votes, x and the result was an overwhelming turnout at the polling places. Unfortunately for the prohibitionists, however, twice as many citizens were opposed to a dry county; 1206 wet votes were cast and 625 dry votes. Prescott and

77'The major argument put forth against prohibition was economic. The a n ti-p r o h ib itio n is ts claim ed th at the county was financially healthy, but prohibition would plunge it into debt and depression. Arizona Democrat. July 26, 1911. 78 The campaign was a mud-slinging battle with the leaders of both sides publicly villifying each other. The dry forces were particularly obnoxious and placarded business establishments with offensive signs. Arizona Daily Star. July 30, 1911. 1 2 3 Jerome reported sizeable wet margins. To the extreme pleasure of the saloon owners, the ever confident Anti- Saloon League had been laughed out of Yavapai County.^9 Apache County was the next to hear the c a l l o f local option. Compared to the aggressive bouts which had been waged in Graham, Maricopa and Yavapai counties, the Apache County campaign was mere shadow-boxing. Mormon temperance workers had no difficulty securing the needed number o f p e t itio n sig n a tu res. The Board o f Supervisors perfunctorily reviewed the petitions and set the election for November 25, 1911. The St. Johns Weekly Herald, the major newspaper of the county, made only one passing reference to the prohibition campaign when it urged its readers Mto be sure and vote for statehood* s salvation. In the weeks before the election there was no controversy and no campaigning. To no one's surprise, election day was victory day for the drys: 230 dry votes were cast and 78 wet votes. The Board of Supervisors canvassed the votes and declared that prohibition would be in effect after

79 In Prescott the vote was 557 to 176 and in Jerome 170 to 55. Anti-prohibition sentiment also prevailed in the rural areas where only five precincts went dry. Three of these were already dry under prvious local option. Walker reversed its position and rejected prohibition by a majority of one vote. Prescott Journal-Miner. August 1, 1911. ^ St. Johns Weekly Herald. November 9, 1911. 1 2 4 0*1 January 11, 1912. A few easy blows and Apache County was dry. Throughout 1911 the territorial prohibition machine was in good working co n d itio n . The Arizona A nti-Saloon League, now in its third year of independent operation, provided a constant stimulus to intensive agitation. The League had pushed its organization into every county of the territory and was fully prepared to do battle at a on moment’s notice. At the annual Anti-Saloon League Convention in May, 1911, Superintendent Burke announced that the League had participated in five local option elections since the last report had been made, and in all 83 of these had scored at least partial victories. The WCTU by now had th ir te e n strong unions. At th e ir conven­ tion that year the ladies resolved to work for the initia­ tio n o f a c o n s titu tio n a l amendment and to e n lis t more

^ Ibid.. December 14, 1911. Arizona Democrat. May 16, 1911. The Anti-Saloon League leaders had ingenious ways of doing battle with the liquor forces. In 1909 they had a program in Phoenix whereby they summoned scores of boys, fourteen to twenty years old, before a grand jury to testify as to whether or not they had been sold liquor in Phoenix saloons. This move was decidedly a scare technique to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Arizona Daily Star, November 5, 1909. 83 JIn addition to the local option contests already described, the Anti-Saloon League had waged campaigns in Greenlee County where three precincts went dry, and in the Parker precinct of Yuma County which also adopted prohibition. Arizona Democrat. May 16, 1911. 1 2 5 financial support for forthcoming local option elec­ tions.^4 The Prohibition Party still boldly put up candidates in the territorial elections,^ and at their convention in 1910 adopted measures to effect a political organization of prohibition forces in Arizona. The position of field secretary was created so that the party would have a representative in the thick of the fight at all tim es.^ By the end of the year 1911 all anti­ saloon groups in the territory were more or less unified. They were ready to banish the Royal Arch from the forth­ coming State of Arizona.

4Minutes of the 1911 WCTU Convention (Phoenix, 1911). In 1910 at the convention the WCTU resolved to lend support to the well-organized Anti-Saloon League and to work with that organization to stimulate and implement reforms. Minutes of the 1910 WCTU Convention (Phoenix, 1910). o c JIn 1911 prohibitionists nominated five candidates for territorial offices. Among them was the famous national prohibitionist Eugene Chafin, who ran for delegate to Congress, and T. W. Otis of Prescott for governor. The prohibitionists always made very poor showings in the elections, and usually trailed far behind even the Socialist candidates. Arizona Democrat. November 22, 1911. 86 Arizona Daily Star. June 3, 1910. CHAPTER V

BALLOTS MEAN BULLETS IN THE WAR AGAINST WHISKEY

On the 12th of February, 1912, Arizona became the fo rty -e ig h th s ta te in the Union. The "baby" s ta te was a true offspring of the progressive era. Its constitution provided for initiative, referendum and recall, the machinery of direct government which progressives espoused. The first governor of the state, George W. P. Hunt, made "People* s Rule and Progressivism" the bywords of his 1911 gubernatorial campaign.1. Moreover, the new state had many citizens who yearned to grapple with social problems and find solutions for the ailments which afflicted society. These were the Arizonans who campaigned for woman suffrage

One of the major issues of debate in the 1911 gubernatorial campaign election was the progressive tone of the constitution. The Republican candidate, Edward W. Wells, as a delegate to the constitutional convention had refused to sign the finished document. The Republicans denounced the progressive constitution, while the Democrats p raised i t and put grea t stock in the fa c t th a t Hunt had been president of the convention. Hunt received 11,123 votes. Wells 9,166, the Socialist candidate Gallentine 1,247, and the Prohibition candidate T. W. Otis 79. Menzo Hatter, "The Major Issu es in A rizona's G ubernatorial Campaign," (M. A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1951), p. 10.

126 1 2 7 in 1912 and who stepped up the tempo o f the p ro h ib itio n crusade. Early in 1910 the Aiti-Saloon League had hit upon an ingenious legal device for suppressing the liquor traffic. Their new axe to attack the saloons was an old law, passed in 1903, which forbade the issuance of saloon licenses within six miles of a camp or scene of operations where as many as twenty-five men were engaged in railroad, canal, reservoir, or other public work. The "six mile" law had been enacted at the insistence of railroad and construction officials who wanted protection from peri­ patetic saloons.^ Not until 1910 were the possibilities of the law recognized by prohibitionists. In that year a Phoenix saloon-keeper applied for a license to open an establishment on Adams Street. Sheriff Carl Hayden, fore­ seeing no controversy, was on the verge of issuing the license when J. H. Langston, a shrewd Anti-Saloon League lawyer, stepped forward to protest the action. Langston noted that there were more than twenty-five men working on the Center Street Bridge, a construction operation less

^Violation of the "six mile" law constituted a misdemeanor, but the language specified that it was not unlawful for sales to be made under a license outside of the corporate limits of cities or towns which had been established six months prior to the beginning of the work. Session Laws of 22nd Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1903. pp. 132-133. 1 2 8 than six miles from the proposed saloon, and insisted that the issuance of a liquor license would be a violation of the 1903 law.3 Langston’s action had far-reaching consequences. Virtually every saloon in Phoenix fell under the restric­ tions of the 1903 law since thirty men were employed on the Adams Street school building and more than fifty men on the Center Street Bridge.4 Not only could no new saloons be established, but also no licenses could be renewed during the time that construction operations were in progress. In January, 1911, a test case for the Six Mile law was brought before the Supreme Court by Hans Herlick, a Phoenix saloon proprietor whose liquor license had expired and who had been denied a new license. Herlick demanded a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a license to operate a saloon in Phoenix d esp ite th e p u b lic works co n stru ctio n .^ The Supreme Court denied the petition. Declaring the law to be perfectly constitutional, the justices ruled that licenses could not be issued because the law was operative and prohibitory.^

3Arizona Daily Star. June 29, 1910. 4Ibid.. December 17, 1910. 5%bid. , December 20, 1910. °James R. Dunseath (ed.). Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona from January. 1910 to Mav. 1911. CXXXIIICSan Francisco, 1911), pp. 280-281. 1 2 9 On March 31, 1911 many saloon licenses in Maricopa County were due for renewal. However, because of the presence of a reclamation camp at the jointhead of the Maricopa and Salt River canals, twenty-three liquor establishments in Phoenix and Tempe were denied licenses and were forced to close their doors. Because they could get no relief from court action, the distressed saloon men went to the heart of the problem and entreated the supervisors of the canal operations to move the reclamation site a half-mile down the road and out of the six-mile radius of Phoenix. The construction superinten­ dent complied w ith th e ir req u est, and b righ t and early the morning of April 10 the saloon men secured new

Q licenses and reopened their businesses. The prohibitionists did not confine the application of the Six Mile law to Maricopa County. Late in March of 1912 some thirty-five Tucson saloon-keepers were badly frightened by the prospect of being put out of business because of the now infamous 1903 law. Liquor licenses in

^Sixteen saloons and two wholesale houses in Phoenix and five saloons in Tempe closed temporarily. The canal work was 5.6 miles from the intersection of Center Street and Washington, the area in which most of the Phoenix saloons were located. Arizona Democrat. April 1, 1911. ^Tbid.. A pril 10, 1911. The fa c t th at the c i t y and county were lo sin g la rg e sums o f money by the p ro h ib itio n of saloons was a strong arguing point for the relocation of the reclamation camp. 1 3 0 Tucson were due to expire on March 31, and no new licenses could be issued because of railroad construction camps located a short distance from the tox^n. Shocked into joint action, the saloon-keepers contributed three hundred dollars each to a common fund for securing remedial legis­ lation. The state legislature, now in its first session in Phoenix, had before it two b ills which would amend the 1903 law to exempt incorporated cities from the prohibitory provisions.^ The saloon people were optimistic, but they needed emergency legislation which would take effect immediately rather than at the end of the usual ninety days. On March 31 the Senate, after suspending the rules no le s s than ten tim es, amended th e s ix -m ile law, and added an emergency clause and a clause exempting it from referendum provisions. Thirty minutes later the House, after the same complicated suspension of rules, passed the measure and returned it to the Senate.But the amended law, which had been railroaded through both chambers, received its death blow at the hands of Governor Hunt. He explained that although he was personally in sympathy with the proposed legislation and believed in the efficacy of it, he could not persuade himself that its immediate

9Ibid.. March 30, 1912. ^ Arizona Daily Star. March 31, 1912. 1 3 1 enactment was vital to preserve the public peace, health, or safety* He therefore was obliged to veto.^ The Tucson saloon-keepers and other ardent champions of liquor were up in arms. In the legislature the measure was reconsidered, and with no serious opposition it passed both chambers by the necessary two-thirds majority. On April 2, 1912 the b ill, with the emergency and no referendum clauses included, became law over the governor's veto. ^ In 1912 the campaign for woman suffrage was at an all-time high. Equal suffrage organizations were in full operation in fifteen towns in the state, and a strong central committee dictated policies and directed activi­ t i e s . Moreover, the WCTU was now devoting a great p o rtio n of its energy to this cause. In 1912 the leaders of the WCTU made an official statement on the relationship of their organization to the Arizona woman suffrage crusade: The WCTU women, as a whole, desire the aboli­ tion of intemperance in all its forms, and the right of the ballot. Because they are thinking women they know that their troubles w ill not be over when either of these reforms for which they strive become a reality. The men must also realize this, but they must work to help women get the ballot. This is all-important.13

H lbid., April 3, 1912. Acts. Resolutions, and Memorials of the First Legislative Session of the State of Arizonq (Phoenix. 1912), pp. 4 -5 . l^Notice taken from WCTU scrapbook, WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. The Flagstaff WCTU is an excellent example of a union which devoted a considerable part of 1 3 2 Woman suffrage made two stands in the first session of the Arizona state legislature. These were preceded by Governor Hunt's message strongly recommending that the suffrage issue be submitted to a vote of the people at the next regular election* "If this great privilege be extended," he declared, "the State's high standards of intelligence will in no wise suffer thereby.Hint was anxious to use the initiative on this question, but on the first day of the session John T. Hughes, senator from Pima County and the son o f Louis and Josephine Hughes, introduced

a b ill to grant Arizona women the right of equal suffrage. J A few days later Representative Kirke I-bore, also of Pima

its time to stimulating suffrage support. The minutes of 1911 and 1912 are replete with references to their suffrage activities. The minutes of the Flagstaff WCTU, 1903-1913, are in possession of the Northern Arizona Historical Society, Flagstaff, Arizona. •^Message of George W. P. Hunt to the First Legis­ lature of the State of Arizona. March 18 1912-(Phoenix. 1912), p. 13. ^John T. Hughes, the son of two pioneer reformers, was the second white child born in Tucson, Arizona. He received his education in law at the University of Pennsyl­ vania, and eventually formed a law partnership with his father. In 1894, at the age of twenty, he was dubbed "Suffrage Knight of Arizona" by Susan B. Anthony at the National Suffrage Convention in Washington. As a state Senator Hughes gave much attention to the suffrage movement, and served as chairman of the Committee on Suffrage and Elections. Boehringer, "Josephine B. Hughes: Crusader and Statebuilder," p. 103; McClintock, Arizona, the Youngest State. Ill, pp. 430-432. 1 3 3 County, sponsored a b ill proposing that the suffrage question be submitted to the voters of the state. Repre­ sentative Moore had neglected to consult with the Arizona Equal Suffrage Association before introducing this b ill, and therefore that organization refused to support his proposal.In spite of this opposition, Moore’s equal suffrage b ill passed the House by a vote of twenty-one to fourteen and was sen t to th e Senate and referred to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.^ The b i l l proposed by Senator Hughes met w ith s t i f f resistance. In considering his proposal, the opposing forces took the stand that suffrage reform should be secured through the initiative feature of the constitution. By this approach, they rationalized, the suffragists would be assured of securing exactly the legislation they wanted. When Hughes's b ill was finally brought out of committee, it was taken up and indefinitely postponed by the narrow vote of ten to nine.^ Several days later Moore’s bill was also indefinitely postponed.^

^Letter from Frances Willard Hinds to James H. McClintbck dated April-4, 1915. HzCllntock Collection, Phoenix Public Library.

1 7 ' 'Arizona Democrat. April 18, 1912. ^ Arizona Daily Star. April 12, 1912. 19Ibid.. April 24, 1912. 1 3 4 The great d riv e to i n i t i a t e a su ffra g e amendment began in June, 1912. Frances Willard Munds and her team of stalwart suffragists spent weeks laboring over the form fo r the proposed amendment and p e t itio n . The fin ish e d product was a well-worded statement, free of legal discrep- ancles. 20 The 14th of June was the opening day of the campaign. At a large rally in Phoenix the main speakers, Mayor Lloyd T. Christy, John T. Hughes, and Frances Willard Munds, urged the men and women of Arizona to sign the in it ia t i v e p e titio n s and co n trib u te money and tim e fo r the hard battle which lay ahead.^ In other parts of the state, dedicated su ffra g e supporters combed the c i t i e s and rural areas for signers. Yuma and Cochise Counties were centers of high-spirited campaigning, and suffrage leaders secured OO hundreds of signatures • By mid-July the drive for signed

20uMrs. Munds was especially pleased with the amend­ ment. She believed that it was the finest b ill that could have been drawn up. In her letter to McClintock dated April 4, 1915, she stated that the bill had been copied by a number of states since its adoption and was generally conceded to be the best suffrage law ever placed on the statutes of any state. Loc. cit.

21 - Arizona Democrat. June 14, 1912. 22Arizona Daily Star. June 15, 1912. Late in May, 1912, eleven residents of the Cherry precinct of Yavapai County jumped the gun and submitted petitions to the Secretary of State. Mrs. Munds sent out a letter declaring that no petitions could be accepted except the official one drawn up by the Equal Suffrage League. Arizona Daily Star. June 1, 1912. 1 3 5 petitions was ended. The zealous canpaigners had secured more than seven hundred names beyond the required percentage, and the petitions were filed with the Secretary of State on July 5. The woman su ffra g e amendment would be on the ballot in November. The state suffrage machine was in high gear by September. Mrs. Munds had spent the summer in northern Arizona where suffrage sentiment was conceded to be weak. During her stay she stumped the countryside and drummed up solid support. In other parts of the state her loyal cohorts generated much enthusiasm.^ On September 14 Laura A Gregg Cannon, the national suffrage representative now married to a representative of the Western Federation of Miners, arrived once again and spoke to a throng of men and women at a "Votes for Women" mass meeting in Phoenix. Mrs. Cannon praised the progressive constitution of Arizona and asserted that the new state now had an opportunity to blaze another trail by granting equal suffrage. The place of women, she declared, was no longer confined to the home

23 Arizona Republican. September 14, 1912. ^The activities in Nogales are typical of the suffrage campaigning which was done in smaller communities. Social groups assembled and concentrated on working out sound arguments for equal suffrage. They then resolved to use these arguments on other groups of friends. In this way an effective word-of-mouth campaign was conducted. Nogales Oasis. September 14, 1912. 1 3 6 since many women were wage-earners who desperately needed political recourse through the ballot. She concluded with th is odd p le a for lib e r ty and eq u a lity : Let the people of Arizona give to future generations a free motherhood and a free father­ hood and an ideal of democracy which they w ill be able to develop without bloodshed.25 Mrs. Minds, in her capacity as chairman of the Arizona Equal Suffrage Central Committee, established a permanent headquarters in Phoenix. All over the state rallies were held, speeches given, and canpaign propaganda distributed. At the convention of the Maricopa County Equal Suffrage League, the members were advised to organize working committees in their own neighborhoods but to avoid "pink carnation" tea -p a rty in d o c tr in a tio n . Mrs. Cannon declared that the men of the state could be counted on to support suffrage at the polls, but the women needed to be prodded to work w ith more intensity.Alice Parks, a dynamic suffrage worker from Palo Alto, California, stormed into Arizona in mid-September and took charge of newspaper publicity and distribution of suffrage literature.

o c Arizona Republican. September 15, 1912. Z^ibid. . September 26, 1912. Under the direction of Mrs. Parks, thousands of campaign leaflets were distributed across the state. The major cities were plastered with banners and placards. Suffrage supporters were furnished w ith buttons and hat and arm bands proclaiming "Votes for Women." Arizona Daily Star. October 8, 1912. 1 3 7 By the end of that first month of concentrated campaigning, active support for the suffrage crusade had increased by bounds. The p rosp ect o f v ic to r y in November was b rig h ter by th e day. The cause of suffrage was aided immeasurably by the support of political parties and large organizations. Every party in the state - Democratic, Republican, Progressive, Socialist, and Prohibition - wrote equal n Q suffrage planks into its platform. The Phoenix Trades Council endorsed rights for women and pledged active support of the measure at the polls.A representative of tlie Western Federation of Miners, Joseph D. Cannon, husband of the suffragist Laura Gregg Cannon, urged all labor organizations in the state to endorse the equal rights amendement. In an interview in Phoenix he declared: It is not a matter of sentiment but of necessity, not a question of ethics but of economics. From the point of view of labor unions, the ballot for women is desired not as a means o f d iv er sio n but as a weapon by which they can obtain better conditions in industry and greater opportunities for the home.™

28 Arizona D aily S ta r. November 31, 1912. Senator Carl Hayden recollects that at the State Democratic Conven­ tion in 1912 he moved that the party go on record in favor of the adoption of a suffrage amendment. Letter from Carl Hayden to the author dated January 29, 1965. Arizona Republican. November 10, 1912. (Yuma) The Morning- Sun. October 18, 1912. 1 3 8 On October 9 Alice Park distributed a new leaflet which declared th a t th e Arizona su ffra g e amendment was supported by the American Federation of Labor, the Arizona Federation of Labor, and no less than eight hundred other civic, industrial, labor, religious, fraternal, and 31 political organizations. To many citizens this support must have seemed overwhelming. Clearly there was nothing for the individual voter to do but jump on the bandwagon. In the last weeks before the election, the tempo of campaigning was speeded up and the voters of the state were barraged with a multitude of appeals. Laura Gregg Cannon and sev era l s ta te senators toured the s ta te as a team, appealing to voters at spirited festivals and 32 rallies. The suffrage workers of Arizona then were honored by the visit of Dr. Aina Shaw, president of the National American Mbman Suffrage Association and the most captivating suffrage speaker of the day.^ Dr. Shaw

Arizona Republican. October 10, 1912. On its face this statement would appear to have been a great exaggeration. It must be remembered, however, that there were many individual churches and chapters of the WCTU, the Good Templars, and the Anti-Saloon League active in Arizona. . ^ Prescott Journal Miner. October 15, 1912. 33 Anna Shaw was one of the most brilliant women of her time. In 1888 she became National Superintendent of WCTU suffrage work. It was she who actually harnessed the full support of the WCTU in suffrage campaigning. In 1904 Dr. Shaw became president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, a post she occupied until 1915. 1 3 9 entertained hundreds of Arizona citizens with her delight­ ful but hard-hitting remarks. In a speech which she gave to several audiences in the state, she declared that the hand that rocks the cradle does not rule the world: They tell us women that. It sounds fine. It sounds poetic, but it isn't true. The hand that rocks the cradle doesn't rule the world because the world doesn't stay in the cradle. It gets out in a few years and wanders the streets and we don't have anything to do with it . . . . We want a hand in making the laws that have to do with what goes on in the street after the world has left the cradle and got away from us.34 Alice Park saw to it that suffrage supporters were walking advertisements for the amendment. Ten thousand badges, hat bands, and pennants were distributed. Thousands of pounds of propaganda literature, printed up in "the suffrage shade of yellow," were sent through the mail, distributed on the street corners, and deposited in public b u ild in gs and offices.The newspapers were flooded with advertisements, editorials, and letters endorsing equal rights for Arizona women. The veteran Josephin Brawley Hughes asked th e e le c to r a te to remember the p ioneer women who stood side by side with their men "fighting the blood­ thirsty Apache Indians, defending their homes, their farms, their mines, scores of them falling victims of the

^Arizona Daily Star. October 15, 1912. 35Ibid., October 8, 1912. 1 4 0 savages."3G Mrs. Munds, over-seeing the operations, announced that the state and local organizations were receiving overwhelming support, and that there was no open opposition to the amendment. Two weeks before the election she felt confident that the old dream of equal suffrage for Arizona women would become a reality the 5th of November. On election day the streets of the major cities were crowded with smiling women waving black and yellow pennants and urging the men to remember th e ir cause in the vo tin g booths. At every precinct in Phoenix, women waited near the p o llin g p la ces and o f f ic io u s ly demonstrated the proper way to mark the first initiated measure in Arizona history. This was the last election day that the women of Arizona would spend forlornly looking at the ballot box. By a vote of 13,442 to 6,202, the men of Arizona released their claim on the ballot and ushered the women to the p olls.38

^ Arizona Daily Star. November 1, 1912. This article ran in the Star for several days prior to the election, as part of a full page spread on woman suffrage. 37ib jd . , November 20, 1912. 33ihe su ffra g e amendment was ca rried by a tw o-to- one margin in every county of the state. In the History of Woman Suffrage. IV, p. 14, Harper and Anthony m aintain that the saloon-keepers did not realize the strength of the support until too late. 1 4 1 The v ic to r y was greeted w ith thanksgiving by suffragists in the state and across the nation. Dr. Aina Shaw congratulated Arizona citizens in an exuberant telegram which read: Congratulations to the women of Arizona for their justice-loving men. Their gratitude to you has filled our hearts with thanksgiving. For them we celebrate by night torch-light parade on Saturday and by great mass meeting in New York, Thousands w ill hear of the wonders of Arizona.39 Mrs. Willard Munds earnestly thanked a ll who had worked or voted for the amendment, and then slip p ed in a fin a n c ia l statement. She reported that though the campaign had been conducted with a minimum of expenses, she was s till obliged to solicit one dollar from asnany grateful new women voters as possible. That, she declared, was the least they could do to pay for their emancipation.^® Shortly after the 1912 general election, the state WCTU convention convened in Tucson. The corresponding secretary, Eleanor Wood, made a telling observation in her report: The su ccess o f th e su ffra g e movement in Arizona can but mean that the battle for state­ wide prohibition w ill soon be waged, and our

Arizona D aily S tar. November 11, 1912. ^®The Arizona suffrage campaign was conducted at an expense of less than $2,000. A great portion of that money was contributed by th e n a tio n a l o rg a n iza tio n . At the end of the campaign, there was a $200 deficit. Arizona Daily S tar. November 12, 1912. 1 4 2 Union should take fresh strength and courage.41

The enactment of equal suffrage opened new doors for Arizona reformers, and for prohibitionists in particular. The franchise in the hands of thousands of Arizona women meant that statewide prohibition had a great chance of becoming a r e a lit y . Early in 1913 the drys of Navajo County resolved to wage a local option campaign. Here the battle was fierce. The Winslow Mail vigorously attacked the pretense of prohi­ bition brought about by religious appeals and by artificial and extravagant demands on emotion.42 The Holbrook Argus ran articles denouncing prohibition as ineffective in Maine and Kansas. Furthermore, the paper declared, "compulsory manhood was bad for manhood," since prohibition forced abstinence on responsible people against their will4^ Early in the campaign a strong wet counter-organization was set up to do open battle with the drys. Businessmen led by John Baver, publisher of the Winslow Mail, organized the Liberty League to combat the anti-saloon element. The League argued that prohibition was an infringement of personal liberty and not in accord with the American spirit of tolerance;

4^I»a.nutes of the 1912 WCTU Convention (Phoenix, 1912), WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. 42Winslow Mail. February 15, 1913. 43Holbrook Argus. January 28, 1913. 1 4 3 moreover, it would mean the loss of revenue of $8,100 per annum from liquor licenses. To combat these disasters, they planned an a ll-o u t campaign to "whip the drys to a fr a z z le . The drys had problems from the s t a r t . They were not well organized and were quite unprepared for the wet onslaught. The petitions they submitted to the Board of Supervisors were found to be deficient by nine signatures. Temperance workers had to comb the county to find nine more persons willing to sign. Finally, the election was called for March 27, 1913.^ The prohibitionists, on the defensive, were quiet. They made no attempt to call public rallies. It was ironic, therefore, that on election day the drys emerged the victors. The vote from the Mormon strongholds of the county was responsible for the triumph of temperance. For the wets and the Liberty Leaguers in particular, there was a bright side to the story. The incorporated city of Winslow had resisted prohibition and remained w et.^

44 Ibid.. January 21, 1913. 45Winslow Mail. February 8, 1913. 4^Holbrook Argus. January 28, 1913. 47Ibid., March 29, 1913. No reference whatsoever was made to women voting in the Navajo County election. 1 4 4 With saloons due to open in Maricopa County in mid-1913, the drys once again consolidated forces to make certain that prohibition remained in full operation in the county. The drys were feeling especially confident because for the first time they would have the votes of women to support their cause. No one considered that the new electorate would do otherwise than support prohibition. Throughout the county there was no flamboyant electioneering. Citizens of Maricopa were no longer awed by local option elections, and could not be Impressed with complicated economic arguments or moralistic preaching. The 1913 election was a grim, quiet fight. WCTU members searched out women who could be counted on to vote for prohibition, and made certain that their names had been added to the Great Reigster. Both sides canvassed the precincts, urging as many as possible to speak out and vote on the question of liquor control.^8 For the wets, interest centered around Phoenix which they hoped to keep out of the clutches of prohibitionists. Labor unions and Socialists

AO The canvassers for both sides worked with the utmost secrecy so that voters would not know that they were being polled. Neither side wanted the other to know how much strength it possessed. This was another reason why the forthcoming election was not debated in the newspapers. Neither wets nor drys wished to call attention to their actions, hoping that without extensive campaigning their cause would silently win out. Arizona Republican. May 29, 1913. 1 4 5 made an unexpected stand in the election, declaring that they would vote for prohibition because of the refusal of saloon-keepers to reduce the price of beer from ten cents to f iv e . The 29th of May was election day in Maricopa County. To the surprise and horror of prohibitionists, droves of Phoenix women openly supported the wet cause. The county as a whole went dry by a majority equal to that of the 1911 election, but six out of seven incorporated Phoenix precincts voted wet. In 1911 three of these had been dry. Prohibitionists were forced to admit that more women had voted against their cause than for it. They rationalized that the new voters had cast their ballots as their husbands and brothers had instructed them. What was needed, the Anti-Saloonists now contended, was sound instruction in the importance of free thinking in the use of the ballot.Perhaps then Maricopa County no longer would have the disgrace of a wet Phoenix in its center.

^ New York Times. June 1, 1913. In the incorporated towns throughout the county, the vote was.extremely close. In Mesa prohibition became effective by a majority of 8 votes; in Wickenburg by 16. In both of these towns the campaigning was fierce. Republican. May 30, 1913. CHAPTER VI

THE DEMISE OF DEMON RUM IN ARIZONA

"We must unite, we must unite. The time has come for unity." The WCTU forces, with great expectations and supreme confidence, set out in 1914 to batter down, once and for all, the fortresses of corruption. The ladies made "unity" their watchword, and scoured the state for support. To generate enthusiasm they sponsored informal parades and rallies, and plastered the towns with brightly painted signs bearing prohibition slogans: "Cleanse our fair young state of the liquor curse," "The time is at hand for Purity," "Remember, a ll evil stems from the whiskey barrel."^ The children were also put to use for the cause. The young members o f the Loyal Temperance Legion stomped up and down the sidewalks of the local "whisky rows" chanting: "Hear the beat o f the c h ild re n 's feet 1 Saloons must go, saloons must go."^ With somewhat more restrained determination the Anti-Saloon League mapped out a thorough, forceful program. The year 1914

I fh e Morning Sun. November 1, 1914. 2Interview w ith L u cile Cummings, in Phoenix, on March 28, 1964.

1 4 6 1 4 7 was target year for the drys. Arizona prohibitionists were ready for the showdown. On the national level prohibition sentiment, which had been relatively dormant for the preceding ten years, broke out into full cry about 1912. At a national conven­ tion held in November of that year, the Anti-Saloon League formally launched a program of intensive campaigning on county, state and national levels.^ The Anti-Saloon League presses at W esterville, Ohio cranked out tons of propaganda containing fresh appeals to friends, challenges to foes, and new arguments for the adoption of prohibition laws. Temperance writers seized upon any incident which might be o f p r o fit to the cause, and met the propaganda o f the brewers with forceful counter-propaganda.^ The national WCTU likewise intensified its harangues. They sent representatives to all states where prohibition had a following. These agents instructed the local unions in the newest methods o f pressure p ersuasion. At the 1914 n a tio n a l convention the WCTU launched a campaign for a dry nation by 1920.5

3 Cherrington, Anti-Saloon Yearbook. 1914 (Wester­ ville, Ohio: Anti-Saloon League of America, 1915), p. 7. ^Merz, The Dry Decade, pp. 10-11. c ^Arizona Republican. February 13, 1914. 1 4 8 The result of this intensive activity was that in 1913 six more states went dry, and innumerable counties followed suit. Officials of the Anti-Saloon League claimed that two-thirds of the country was now dry. In December of 1913 temperance forces marched on Washington. Four thousand men and women paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue singing "Onward, Christian Soldiers," and carrying banners proclaiming "Saloons must go." The new wave of prohibition sentiment which swept the United States after 1912 was the inevitable result of a half-century of indoctrination on the evils of alcohol.® Americans everywhere had heard and heard again the arguments for temperance, and hundreds of thousands of them had joined the ranks of the prohibition army. The loud shouts of national prohibition reform which awakened much of the nation in 1912 were echoing in Arizona in 1914. This call, together with the major reformist triumph of 1912, the enactment of woman suffrage, was sufficient to touch off a blazing statewide campaign for prohibition. In February of 1914 the drys of Arizona formally launched their drive to initiate a prohibition

S ierz, The Drv Decade, p. 12. 7Ib id . . pp. 15-16. ^Grant, "The Liquor Traffic Before the Eighteenth Amendment," p . 9. 1 4 9 amendment to the state constitution. Copies of a proposed amendment were sent from Yuma County under the direction of Judge Peter T. Robertson, who urged WCTU members to circulate them as quickly and widely as possible.9 The drys claimed that they favored initiating prohibition rather than pushing enactment by the state legislature because the initiated b ill would go before the people on its own merits rather than become entangled with the campaigns of various candidates for the legislature. In late March of 1914 the Temperance Federation of Arizona was established to unite the dry forces in the s t a te . The avowed purpose o f the new-born fed era tio n was the immediate extermination of the liquor traffic in Arizona* Prohibition leaders throughout the state, realizing that they would have to consolidate their power if they were to be successful in November, now issued a summons to all advocates of initiated prohibition. Four hundred persons, representing such groups as the Prohibition Party, the Anti-Saloon League, the WCTU, the UMCA and YWCA, the Socialist Party, the Good Templars, the Ministerial Union, the IWW and other labor unions, and several

o Arizona Republican. February 13, 1914. ^The national organizations, the WCTU and the A nti-Saloon League, sponsored the 1914 p ro h ib itio n movement in Arizona as a part of their campaign in the western states. Arizona Daily Stay. February 13, 1914. 1 5 0 Christian churches, heard the call and arrived in Phoenix on March 30 to help draft an official prohibition amend­ m en t.^ The actual drafting of the prohibition amendment resulted in a bitter hassle. The Tucson delegation, led by the aging but indomitable Louis C. Hughes and Eugene Chafin, the defunct presidential candidate of the Prohi­ bition Party, staunchly contended that under the new amendment druggists should be prohibited from selling liquor on prescription. The Anti-Saloon League, on the other hand, felt that this intrusion into the realm of medicine would prove a fatal impediment to the acceptance of the amendment by the citizens of the state. The infant Temperance Federation was threatened with a serious sp lit in its ranks on this question. To add to the controversy, other delegates asserted that the amendment should not in any way be construed to prohibit the use of alcohol for 1 O sacramental purposes. Before the breach became too wide

^ Arizona Republican. April 1, 1914. Though the amendment drawn up and c ir c u la te d by Judge Robertson o f Yuma was acceptable to most prohibitionists, the leaders knew that its text would have to be officially sanctioned by all those who might eventually support it. For that reason, the original Robertson petitions were disregarded. 12 To combat the medical argument Dr. W. W. Wilkin­ son, a prohibition advocate, declared that liquor was unnecessary for medical purposes. A prominent businessman, B. W. Getsinger, in hope of thwarting further discussion of wine for sacramental purposes, declared that he had talked to the Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral who.said he was opposed to liquor traffic and would support prohibition. 1 5 1

the twin questions of medicine and religion were put to a v o te . The concensus o f th e d eleg a tes was th a t no dispensaries of liquor whatever should be allowed in the state, and that no qualifying statements on the extent of prohibition should appear in the amendment.13 Thus the language o f the amendment was str in g e n tly p r o h ib itiv e in all details; it decreed that "no ardent spirits, wine, beer or intoxicating liquor of whatever kind shall be manufactured or introduced into the state of Arizona under any p r e te n s e .11 ^ With the adoption o f the amendment, the Federation was pledged to a frontal assault on the Royal -Arch.

Another representative declared that a Catholic priest in Flagstaff had said that his church would support prohibition. The convention optim istically construed these statements to mean that these churches would not challenge the amend­ ment. Arizona Gazette. April 2, 1914. ^ Arizona Daily Star. March 31, 1914. In its entirety the amendment read: "Section 1: No ardent spirits, wine, beer or intoxicating liquor of whatever kind shall be manufactured or introduced into the state of Arizona under any pretense. Every person who sells, gives, exchanges, barters or disposes of any ardent spirit, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating liquor of whatever kind shall be punished or imprisoned for not more than two years and by fine of not more than three hundred dollars for each offense. Section 2: This act shall take effect on and be in force on and after.the first day of January, 1915. Section 3: All parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed." Initiative and Referendum Publicity Pamphlet for Regular General Election. November 3. W J t> P. 3 . 1 5 2 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1914 the drys primed the heavy guns of their propaganda. The literature which the Anti-Saloon League paired into Arizona encouraged many fence-sitters to take up the banner. News­ papers capitalized on the liquor question as never before. The Arizona Republican in mid-April opened its columns to any person who wished to advance his or her views, pro or con. The drys snatched up this opportunity and submitted letters almost daily in which they argued in behalf of the amendment for m edical and economic as w e ll as moral rea­ sons. Members of the Temperance Federation circulated the initiating petitions; and on July 2, 1914 these were filed with Secretary of State Sidney P. Osborn. Several weeks later the attorney general announced that the proposed prohibition amendment would be the first initiated measure 1 6 on the ballot of the November 3 general election.,L While the drys were hauling out their field artil­ lery for the great assault, the wets of Arizona were preparing to defend their beloved institution. In early April the wets, led by Tucson businessman Alfred Donau, allied to form the Arizona Local Self Government League, the single purpose of which was to block the prohibitionists

•^Arizona Republican. April 15, 1914 through November 2, 1914.

^ Tucson Citizen. July 5, 1914. 1 5 3 and their amendment.^ Members of the League argued that p ro h ib itio n had never curbed the a lc o h o lic e v i l and th ere­ fore should not be instituted on a wide scale; "local self- government, 11 their term for local option, was the best solution to the liquor problem. In order to divert atten­ tio n from the amendment, the League drew up the s o -c a lle d 11 eight-year" amendment as an alternative. Its provisions were simple. After the state as a whole had voted on prohibition, there could not be another election on the question for eight years; furthermore, the vote on prohibi­ tion in any incorporated town or any precinct would be construed as the liquor policy in that area for eight years. Thus if an incorporated city voted dry in the general election of 1914, that city would remain dry for eight years no matter what action was taken in the rest of the state. The members of the Local Self Government League insisted that the eight-year amendment would minimize "strife, turmoil, and dissention attendant upon elections where the question of prohibition is involved. The Local Self-Government League, using the slogan •' - "Vote Against Prohibition and Keep Arizona on the Map,"

17 Tucson Citizen. September 1, 1914. l^The eight-year amendment was, in effect, local option legislation with the stipulation that an election could be held only once in eight years. Initiative and Referendum Publicity Pamphlet, pp. 15-18.. 1 5 4 communicated its sentiments through extensive campaigning in newspapers and widely dispersed flyers. The League was especially strong in Cochise, Maricopa and Yavapai Counties, but even here its position was weakened by the tremendous headstart of the prohibitionists.^ The drys had been at work in Arizona for almost forty years, and it was impossible to eradicate their temperance teachings in a few months. In the election of 1914 the ardent drys, to the chagrin of many candidates, used all possible means to make prohibition the major campaign issue. The Progressive Party, standing for Hthose things which upbuild society and against everything that tears down and destroys the social order,11 and following the exanple of Theodore Roosevelt in Ohio in 1912, inserted a dry plank in their platform. Their candidate for governor was George U. Young, then mayor of Phoenix. The Republicans, delighted, prophesied that this plank would insure a victory for their gubernatorial candi­ date, Ralph H. Cameron, once the t e r r it o r ia l d eleg a te in C ongress.P olitically astute candidates attempted to steer

l^The three counties which had the largest membership in the Local Self Government League were also among the top- ranking, cou n ties in number o f-sa lo o n s. C ochise led the l i s t with 107; Yavapai had sixty, and Maricopa thirty-one. Gila, not regarded as a stronghold for organized wets, had sixty- seven saloons. Tucson Citizen. September 14, 1914. 2®Hatter, "The Major Issues in Arizona's Guber­ natorial Campaigns," p. 235. . 91 The Republicans predicted that the Progressive candidate would get the vote of Maricopa County, and would 1 5 5 clear of the prohibition question, knowing that there was no safe position to take. George W. P, Hunt, the Democratic incumbent, su c c e ssfu lly managed to evade the p ro h ib itio n question by diverting the attention of voters to the less controversial capital punishment amendment which he supported. In the primary, Hunt had bested Dr. H. A. Hughes. He was roundly denounced in the Arizona Issue and labeled 9? a representative of the Royal Arch. The only other candidate for a major office who called attention to his prohibitionist stand was Eugene U. Chafin, the national temperance crusader now living in Tucson and running for United States Senator on an inde­ pendent ticket. Throughout the campaign Chafin preached in true evangelistic fashion on all the evils of the liquor traffic. In one of his more extreme pronouncements, Chafin declared that Arizona saloons must go because liquor was a major curse at the University of Arizona. He maintained that more young men contracted the liquor habit while at the University than were graduated each year.He repeatedly attempted to force his opponent, Mark Smith, to justify his

also carry the counties of the state which favored prohibi­ tion. Since these ordinarily would have been carried by Hunt, his loss of them would mean that the Republican candidate would emerge the victor. Arizona Daily Star. November 1, 1914. 22Arizona Issue, June, 1910, p. 4. 23Tucson Citizen. October 5, 1915. 1 5 6 opposition to equal suffrage and to state and national prohibition. Smith, however, ignored Chafin and the whole question of prohibition with an air of complete confidence and superiority.^ While the electioneering for public office was in progress, fierce battles over the prohibition amendment were being fought throughout the state. In the last frantic weeks of the prohibition campaign, both the wets and the drys tried out a wide range of appeals. Each side kept a constant stream of articles and advertisements in the newspapers. The anti-prohibitionists issued a pamphlet entitled "Truth" which purported to be the most realistic appraisal of the consequences of statewide prohibition. The drys, meanwhile, circulated a four-page sheet called "Arizona Dry" which enumerated the countless benefits which prohibition would bring.The wet coalition ran full-page spreads declaring that prohibition leaders were merely opportunists who hoped to make huge profits in the age of bootlegging, crime, and vice which would inevitably accompany prohibition. They contended that the enactment of statewide prohibition would not stamp out the liquor traffic, but would only create new

^ Arizona Daily Star. March 28, 1914; Tucson Citizen. September.14, 1914. ^ Tucson Citizen. October 26, 1914. 26Ibid.. October 5, 1914. 1 5 7 problems in every locality where people were accustomed to saloons.27 As the anti-prohibitionists continued their campaign again st the amendment, they became more scath in g in their diatribes. Prohibition, they predicted, would result in severe social and economic setbacks; thousands of dollars of revenue would be lost from the sale of liquor licenses; buildings would go vacant; and men would be forced out of jobs.28 in short, prohibition would spell disaster for the new state. The drys countered these indictments with the old moralistic, bleeding-heart argument: if alcohol were prohibited, crime and insanity would be virtually obliterated and the state would no longer have to maintain penal institutions or insane asylums.The prohibitionists were fully cognizant that economics was a key talking p o in t again st the amendment, and attempted to f o i s t th e ir own statistics off on the public. They claimed that the $602,205 that currently was being spent in saloons each year would, after the enactment of prohibition, increase

27»Initiated Legislation,11 Arizona Magazine. August 1914, p. 8. no ^ A great deal of the campaigning against the proposed amendment was done through purchased newspaper space. Tucson Citizen, September 1, 1914.

2^Arizona Bulletin. August 19, 1914. 1 5 8 "legitimate" business and give employment to all those who had been put out of the liquor business. Legitimate business would receiv e the money which was squandered on alcohol. Empty jails and low court costs would eventually lead to lower taxes, and the state would then be able to finance greater cultural and educational enterprises.^® The drys, with a deftness that came from long experience, painted a rosy picture of the utopia which would certainly result from the enactment of prohibition. One of the greatest points of conflict in the 1914 prohibition campaign was the drastic nature of the proposed c o n s titu tio n amendment. G. F. R inehart, a newcomer who was the acknowledged leader of the drys in the 1914 campaign,31 shouted loudly that the strictly prohibitive amendment was air-tight and free from any legal loopholes: Arizona has form ulated an amendment th at means exactly what it says and says exactly what it means. . . . It is the first proposal in the world on th is q u estion th at makes no con cession s or exceptions. It has the courage of conviction and the fortitude of rightiousness and faces all adversaries fearlessly, serenely confident in its armor o f r ig h t .32

3®Arizona Daily Star. October 29, 1914. 3lR inehart, an aggressive Tucsonan, was the General Superintendent of the Arizona Temperance Federation. 32lnitiative and Referendum Publicity Pamphlet. p. 6. 1 5 9

Very early in the campaign, however, the anti-saloonists were in a touchy predicament because of the radical language o f th e ir amendment. The Pharm aceutical A ssocia­ tion of Arizona issued a long resolution denouncing the amendment because of its illiberal stipulation against the importation of alcohol. The druggists labeled the amend­ ment "vicious, ill-considered, half-baked legislation," consciously designed to harm the pharmacy profession in the state. The druggists staunchly contended that alcohol was as necessary in the preparation of medicines as saw, hammer, and nails were in housebuilding. They urged all friends of the neighborhood drugstore to concentrate their efforts in redressing the injustices and insults which the 33 proposed amendment threw upon an honored p r o fe ssio n . Of the churches of Arizona, the Roman Catholic was the most vocal in o p p o sitio n to the amendment. Because the stentorian G. F. Rinehart had stated unequivocably that the amendment made "no concessions or exceptions," Catholics could only conclude that the use of wine in the sacrament of Holy Communion would be prohibited. To this, they raised bitter objections based on the argument that such a prohi­ b itio n was an infringem ent o f r e lig io u s lib e r t i e s .

33Arizona Republican. September 17, 1914. 3^Arizona Daily Star. September 1, 1914. In answer to the objection of Roman Catholics, Rinehart supposedly said that unfermented grape juice would serve the purpose. He told his supporters that if the Catholics persisted in 1 6 0 Rinehart and other prohibition leaders were in a quandary. The wets had seized upon the objections of druggists and orthodox churchmen and had capitalized on these most effectively. They repeatedly harped that s in is t e r and fa n a tic p r o h ib itio n is ts had in te n tio n a lly sought to prohibit wine for sacramental purposes and alcohol for medicinal preparations.^5 The drys realized that the situation was fast getting out of control and that they might permanently lose ground if they did not make a conciliatory statement. In August, therefore, Rinehart came forward with a long article in which he cited the opinion of a former judge, A. C. Baker, that although the amendment did by inference prohibit wine for sacramental purposes, this provision could not be enforced because such was not the intention of the framers of the amendment. To soothe the d isgru n tled d ru g g ists, he then announced that patent medicines containing alcohol would not fall into the category of prohibited goods. The amend­ ment, he declared, did not make it unlawful to drink liquor, nor was it illegal to manufacture medicines or pharma­ ceuticals of any type. A recognized clergyman, pharmacist or doctor, th erefo re, could import any amount o f liq u o r for sacramental or medicinal purposes.

making trouble over that point, they would have to "get out and fig h t the C a th o lic s .n 3 5 Arizona Daily Star. September 10, 1914. 1 6 1 Although Rinehart had been forced to retract his claim th a t th e amendment was a ir -t ig h t when he had to concede that Section 1 could not be applied literally, the drys were determined to fight their way out of this d iffi­ cult corner. "A traffic that has no more to sustain it than a false appeal to race or religious prejudice,“ they c r ied , "ought to go down in disgrace.For their part, the Catholics were not satisfied. In October of 1914 the Church issued a formal statement denouncing the prohibition amendment. Father Thomas Connolly of A ll S ain ts p a rish in Tucson, acting as spokesman for the Roman Catholics, declared that though many lawyers contended that the amend­ ment would in no way restrict free exercise of religious liberties, the church still felt that it must stand in o p p o sitio n to the p ro h ib itio n amendment. Father Connolly stated that it was not the intention of Roman Catholics to ally themselves with the liquor interests, but rather to correct a glaring oversight by the framers of the amendment who did not make express provision for the sacramental use 37 of wine. Several other churches took definite stands on th e proposed amendment. At th e ir 1914 diocesan convocation Episcopal clergymen, at the urging of the reform-minded dean

^The Rinehart article appeared in newspapers for several weeks. See Arizona Daily Star. August 30, 1914. 37Ibid.. October 25, 1914. 1 6 2 of the Trinity Cathedral of Phoenix, the Reverend William Scarlett, endorsed and pledged support to statewide prohibition for Arizona.The Presbyterian Synod of Arizona likewise approved the amendment and vowed to work and pray for its passage. Twenty-five Presbyterian elders were assigned to devote all their efforts to the campaign.39 The Arizona Federation of Labor shocked prohibi­ tionists by opposing the amendment. Their resolution stated that prohibition would be impossible to enforce, a costly experiment to the taxpayers, and detrimental to many members of the Federation. After the anti-prohibition statement of the Arizona Federation of Labor, the wets felt that other labor groups would probably follow suit, though they did not expect them to make formal declarations of their stands.

The Episcopalians, who had ignored the prohibition movement in Arizona u n t il 1914, referred to i t then as the campaign "recently inaugurated in this state." Journal of the Twenty-Second Annual Convocation of the Episcopal Church. M issionary D is tr ic t o f Arizona, p . 23. Dean S c a r le tt was graduated from Harvard in 1905 and ordained to the priest­ hood in 1909. He came to Phoenix in 1911 and remained u n t il 1922. He served as a regent of the University of Arizona for four years, and was often involved in social reform move­ ments. At the time of the 1914 convocation he was chairman of the recently formed "Social Service Commission" of the Episcopal Church. Typed paper in Biographical file, "William Scarlett," MzClintock Collection, Phoenix Public Library. ^ Arizona Daily Star. August 30, 1914.

40The Morning Sun. October 9, 1914. 1 6 3 Campaigning was conducted at a fast and furious pace until the polls closed on November 3. The drys made certain that a representative of their interests hit every town of considerable size in the state, and made one last personal pitch for prohibition. The wets, who were considerably fewer in number and far le s s organized, were forced to make their appeals through pamphlets and newspaper advertisements. While they knew that they would have to buck the farmers of the state who would almost certainly vote dry, they anticipated that the more powerful mining interests would stand as a buffer to prohibition.^ In the last days of the campaign, the drys resorted to sheer emotionalism. The "Flying Squadron," a team of nationally famous temperance lecturers, visited Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma and drummed away at their well-worn themes in speeches and songs.^ The Sunday before election day was proclaimed "P rohibition Sunday" by many churches throughout th e s ta te , and in Tempe on that day three hundred Sunday school chil­ dren marched in gigantic parade.^

Which Western S tates W ill Go Dry?" Sunset Magazine. November 1914, p . 862. 42Arizona D aily S tar. November 6 through November 12, 1914. 43Arizona Republican. November 2, 1914. 1 6 4

In the campaign of 1914 the leaders of the drys did not employ new methods of temperance warfare. They merely administered, in concentrated dosages, forty-year old temperance talk. As the campaign drew to a close, temperance themes were indelibly imprinted on the minds of thousands of Arizona citizens. On November 4, the day after the election, newspapers across the state carried banner lines proclaiming that Arizona had gone dry. The f i r s t reports were th a t p ro h ib itio n had won by a land­ slide vote. As the returns dribbled in, however, it became apparent that the margin of victory was a slim one. The final tally showed that only five of the four­ teen counties had dry majorities. These were the four local option counties - Maricopa, Graham, Navajo, and Apache - plus Yuma County, which had gone dry by the miniscule margin of twenty-five votes. The final vote was 25, 887 dry votes to 22,743 wet votes.44 Maricopa County had come through with a surprisingly strong dry plurality of 3,741. Without the vote of that county, Arizona would have been wet by a majority of 577.45 The

^Arizona Daily Star. November 21, 1914. 'Ibid. 1 6 5 eig h t-y ea r amendment, o r ig in a lly sponsored by the w ets, was defeated in every county.^ The drys across the state r e jo ic e d . The Royal Arch was overpowered. Three hundred- fifty-four saloons would be forced to close their doors, and at that moment the goal which the drys had worked for \ almost three decades became a reality.4? To many people in Arizona and elsewhere in the n ation , the enactment o f p ro h ib itio n by the "Baby State" was nothing short of miraculous. Arizona had been regarded as the epitome o f th e wet w est, and saloon men had been supremely confident that any effort to dry up the whiskey barrels would be soundly repulsed. After prohibition gained its squeaking victory in Arizona, astute appraisers of the political climate began to look on the event as prophetic of what might happen in other states and eventually the nation. The concensus was that the victory was the result of a set of seemingly unimportant factors which coinci­ dentally meshed with the old-line prohibition sentiment in the state.^ Among these lesser factors was the campaign

^At the last minute the Local Self-Government League sensed that prohibition might carry, and realized that it would remain in force for eight years if their proposal also carried. They hastened to undo the xrork, therefore, and urged voters to reject the amendment. Arizona Republican. November 11, 1914. ^Thomas K. Marshall, The First Sl% lvbnths of Pro­ hibition in Arizona and its Effect -Uoon Industry. Savings and Municipal Government, p. 8. ^In the New Republic article of January 9, 1915 "Why Arizona Went Dry," Carlton H. Parker presents many 1 6 6 of Chafln which, though hopeless in itself, attracted attention to the crusade. Another contributing element for victory was the consistent support of Evangelical and Mormon churches which had strong support among the rural c la s s e s .49 Furthermore, th e slogan "Ten cen t beer" became a popular denunciation of the wets in the campaign. Disgruntled beer drinkers believed that saloon-keepers had, out of avarice, raised the price from five cents to ten per glass. Another reason given for the victory of prohibition was the dry vote of the Negroes of the state. Negroes had long been barred from all saloons in Arizona except those operated by Mexicans, and therefore they had an innate hostility to the Anglo-dominated liquor traffic. As one Negro put it, "I don't know how I'm expected to get patriotic over a place I'm not allowed to go into." It was estimated that the great percentage of Arizona's 1500 Negroes voted dry.'*® C ertain ly one o f th e p r in c ip a l con­ tributing factors in the outcome of the election was the presence of women voters at the polls. That was the first interesting reasons for the success of the prohibition fight in Arizona. Many of Parker's assertions would be difficult to prove, but his fundamental thesis that prohi­ bition carried because the time was ripe and .because of many coincidental occurrences is undoubtedly correct. 4®Arizona Republican. November 8, 1914. -*®Parker, "Why Arizona Went D ry," p . 20. 1 6 7 chance for great numbers o f women to come forward w ith their ballots, and many of them were Evangelical or Mormon church members who had made p ro h ib itio n th e ir special cause.^ Although there were many reasons for the victory, the major reason was that by now Arizona had accumulated some thirty years of temperance sentiment - and in 1914 an extremely effective campaign was conducted by experienced crusaders who were determined that prohi-

5 0 bition would finally prevail. The liquor interests of the state, though defeated at the polls, were not willing to say amen to prohibition. Immediately after the last returns had been counted, the wets charged that the prohibition amendment was faulty because it was not self-executing and therefore had no force until the legislature enacted laws to carry it into

53-In 1914 Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Ohio all went dry. In each of these states woman suffrage was in operation. This was good grounds for the assertion that the ballot in the hands of women was a definite asset to prohibition in most states. The notable exception was C a lifo rn ia . L. Anes Brown, "Suffrage and P ro h ib itio n ," North American Review. CCIII, January 1916, pp. 93-100. 59 .... Some of the other reasons put forth were that the resolution passed by the State Federation of Labor opposing prohibition had shocked drys into making more effective bids for labor support. With the urging of prohibitionists, many smaller unions bucked their instruc­ tions and supported the drys. Another source of dry support were mine operators who objected to saloons because of the bad effect of liquor upon output of mine workers. "Why Arizona Went Dry," p. 20. 1 6 8 effect.^ Furthermore, the old question of the consti­ tutionality of the amendment suddenly became a matter of supreme importance. Early in December the wets prepared themselves for one last legal battle. Four suits were filed in the federal district court asking for an inter­ locutory injunction to restrain the attorney general from enforcing the amendment due to become effective on January 1, 1915. The petitioners in the blanket suit were the Kelczer Brothers for wholesale liquor dealers; the Owl Drug Company of Prescott for pharmacists; J. C. Adams, owner of the Adams Hotel, Phoenix, for retail liquor dealers; and Father Thomas Connolly for the Roman Catholic Church of Arizona. Wets and drys prepared th e showdown by arraying impressive legal line-ups. Among the attorneys retained by the wets were Reece Ling of Prescott, Eugene Ives and John Wright o f Tucson, Richard E. Sloan o f Phoenix, and George P. Bullard of Prescott.For the state, Attorney General Wiley Jones had the responsibility of upholding the amendment which had been proclaim ed law by Governor Hunt on December 14. To assist Jones the prohibitionists retain ed Judge A. C. Baker, and George Rinehart and Eugene Chafin were appointed consultants.^ The combined wet and

^ Tucson Citizen. November 7, 1914. ^ Arizona Republican. December 16, 1914. 55Ibid. . December 16, 1915. 1 6 9 dry teams unquestionably comprised the best legal talent in the state. The fight over the legality of the prohibition amendment began on December 21 in Los -Angeles before * Federal Judges William H. Sawtelle of Arizona, 01in Well­ born of the Southern District of California, and Erskin M. Ross of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.The wets argued that prohibition violated Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment because it blocked the free exercise of religious liberty in the importation of wine for sacramental purposes and because it exceeded the proper limits of the police power of the state in restricting the manufacture, sale, and disposal of alcohol for medicinal purposes. The lawyers for the wholesale and retail liquor dealers claimed that they were being deprived of their property without due process of law, another violation of

the Fourteenth Amendment. ^ Sloan of Phoenix made the closing arguments for the wets. He contended that the act

Arizona Daily Star. December 22, 1914. The drys at first contended.that the District Court had no jurisdic­ tion over the issue. A ruling was handed down that the court did have jurisdiction because suits arose under the Constitution of the United States and the matters in con­ troversy, except suit of the church, exceeded $3,000. William Seabury, Review of the Prohibition Amendment Before the Federal District Court, p. 4. _7 J Seabury, Review of the Prohibition Amendment. p . 4. 1 7 0 was a usurpation by the state of powers which belonged only to the federal government, that enforcement meant that many would be deprived of property without due process of law, and th a t th ere was no s e lf-e x e c u tin g cla u se in the amend­ ment. In a parting shot at the drys, Sloan declared that prohibition had been a scandal wherever it had been enacted and had fathered b ootleggers and sp e a k -e a sie s.58 Judge A. C. Baker, arguing for the drys, denied that the prohibition amendment deprived anyone of property rights. It was merely a regulation of business, he said, and such a rig h t was a p o lic e power reserved to th e s t a te . The other dry lawyers argued th a t the amendment could not prohibit a church from using wine in the sacrament because the C o n stitu tio n guaranteed r e lig io u s freedom, and no s ta te could abridge that right.59 On December 24, 1914 the judges of the Federal District Court denied the plea for an interlocutory injunc­ tion on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient to justify such action. The prohibition amendment had been sustained. When the news of the decision reached Phoenix,

58 The wets contended that there was approximately $300,000 worth of liquor on the Arizona market at the time, and that if prohibition were effected dealers would be unable legally to dispose of their stocks. Arizona Repub­ lican. December 23, 1914. 59Arizona Daily Star. December 23, 1914. 1 7 1 Dr. H. A. Hughes promptly staged a roaring demonstration. The elated doctor, carrying a banner which depicted a barrel whose end had been smashed out with an axe, lead th e Indian School band from saloon to saloon and d irected them to play mournful music. At midnight on December 31, 1914 the death knell for the liquor traffic in Arizona sounded. Across the state, the event was viewed with mixed emotions. At the Phoenix Country Club, Richard E. Sloan performed the last rites in a mock funeral for Monsieur Champagne who had been struck down in Los Angeles.In Nogales, officers of the law slept in saloons to prevent violations of the prohibition law .^ Members of the WCTU joined together in Phoenix and sang their new theme song: The sun shines bright in our Arizona home There's gladness where once was despair The children sing and the mothers happy smile For no longer waits the evil snare. The fathers save all the daily wages earned They too are happy th a t w e're dry. The time has come when a l l liq u o rs have to go Then to old vile alcohol, good-bye. Weep no more the mothers No more th e ch ild ren cry Let us sing glad song and w e'll make our dear - state ring As we bid old Alcohol, good-bye. 3

Arizona Republican. December 25, 1914. Gljbid.. January 1, 1915. ^2Nogales Oasis. January 1, 1915. go This song was adopted by the Arizona WCTU in 1915 as th e ir s ta te song. I t was w ritten by Mrs. F. B. 1 7 2 The enactment of prohibition in Arizona had come after years of struggle by steadfast reformers. It had slowly evolved from its seedbeds of narrow moral admonition until it had finally taken on sophisticated economic and political overtones. Staunch prohibitionists had endured decades of humiliation and defeat, but they never abandoned their determ ination. Their v ic to r y on November 4 had been by a frightening narrow margin. But on December 31, 1914, it did not matter to the drys that their majority was slim. Only one thing mattered: the dry wind of prohibition had swept the state. Demon Rum was dead at last in Arizona.

Stevens, a long time member of the WCTU. A copy of the song is in the WCTU Scrapbook, WCTU Home, Phoenix. 64 ^During the succeeding months the prohibition amendment was subjected again to considerable legal scrutiny. The Arizona legislature put appropriate teeth into the amendment by passing police regulations to prevent illegal importation or use of alcohol. The amendment managed to su rvive a l l a tta ck s on i t and.continued in operation until it was supplanted by the national prohi­ b itio n amendment in 1920.

% BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished Materials

Abbott, Mary H. "Josephine B. Hughes, Mother of Arizona.11 University of Arizona Seminar paper (Autumn, 1963). On f i l e at APHS. Brice, Calvin. N. "The Constitutional Convention of Ari­ zona." M. A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1953.. "Complete Verbatim Report of the Arizona Constitutional Convention, 1910." Special Collections Division, University of Arizona Library. Conklin, Frank P. "The Development of the Constitution of the State of Arizona." M. A. thesis, University of Southern California, 1928. C randell, L ilia n . "Crusaders Then and Now." Speech given at Glendale - to the WCTU State Convention, October 30, 1964. WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. Interview w ith L u cile Cummings, Phoenix, March 27, 1964. Drachman, Mbse. "Rem iniscenses." Typescript copy at Arizona Pioneers* Historical Society. Dysthe, Diane D. "Louis C. Hughes of Arizona: Territorial Governor, 1893-1896." University of Arizona Seminar paper (Autumn, 1964). On file at APHS. Fish, Joseph. "The History of Arizona." Typescript copy at Mathews Library, Arizona State University. Morris Goldwater Collection. Arizona Historical Founda­ tion, Phoenix, Arizona. Grafin, William. "Reminiscenses." In Biographical file, Arizona Pioneers* H istorical.Society. Hatter, Menzo E. 'The Major Issues in Arizona* s Gubernatorial Campaigns." M. A. thesis, Arizona State University, 1951.

1 7 3 1 7 4 Letter from Senator Carl Hayden to the author, January 29, 1965. Hedrick, Elias. Biographical file, Arizona Pioneers' Historical Society. Hughes, Louis C. Letterbook, 1893-1896. Special Collections Division, University of Arizona Library. James H. McClintock Collection. Phoenix Public Library. Minutes of the Flagstaff WCTU, 1903-1913. Northern Arizona Historical Society. Tobias, Judith Ellen. "Governor Safford and Education in Arizona, 1869-1877." University of Arizona Seminar paper (Autumn, 1964). On f i l e at Arizona Pioneers' Historical Society. WCTU Scrapbook for 1894. WCTU Home, Phoenix, Arizona. Webster, Harriet Grace. "Vfoman Suffrage in Congress." M. A. thesis, University of Arizona, 1934. Jacob Weinberger Collection. Special Collections Division, University of Arizona Library. Willard, Joel. Biographical file, Arizona Pioneers' Historical Society.

Newspapers

Arizona Democrat. Arizona Republican. Bisbee Daily Review. Holbrook Argus. New York Times. Nogales Oasis. (Phoenix)Arizona Gazette. Phoenix Herald. 1 7 5 Prescott Journal-Miner. (Safford)Graham County Guardian. (Solomonville)Arizona Bulletin. St. Johns Weekly Herald. Tombstone Epitaph. Tombstone Weekly Epitaph. (Tucson)Arizona Daily Star. Tucson Citizen. (W illcox)Arizona Range News. Winslow Mail. (Yuma)The Morning Sun.

Documentary Publications (arranged in order of publication date)

Amended School Laws of the Territory of Arizona Enacted by the Twelfth Legislative Assembly. 1883 7 n. d.% n. p. Annual Report of the WCTU. 1884. n. d., n. p. (Copy at WCTU Home, P hoenix). Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Legislature of the Territory of Arizona. 1885. n. d., n. p. Annual Report of the WCTU. 1887. n. d., n. p. (Copy at WCTU Home, P hoenix). Revised S ta tu tes o f Arizona. 1887. P resco tt: Cowner P rin t, 1687. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1887. Prescott: Courier Printing Estab- lishment, 1887. Journals of the Sixteenth Legislative Assembly of the T erritory o f Arizona. 1891. Phoenix: Herald Book & Job Office, 1891. 1 7 6 Journals of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Arizona,1 8 9 1 .Phoenix: Phoenix Herald Power Print, 1891. Constitution for the State of Arizona as Adopted bv the Constitutional Convention of 189l l Phoenix: Phoenix Herald Book and Job P rin t, 1891. Biennial Message of the Governor of Arizona to the Seven­ teenth Legislative Assembly. Phoenix, n. d., n. p. Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1893. Phoenix, n. d., n. p . Report of the Governor of the Territory of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior. 1894. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1895. Biennial Message of the Governor of Arizona to the Eighteenth Legislative Assembly. Phoenix, n. d., n. p. Session Laws of the Eighteenth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, n. d., n. p. Journals of the Eighteenth Legislative Assembly of the T erritory o f Arizona. Phoenix: Herald Book and Job Office, 1895. Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. Phoenix: Herald Book & Job Office, 1895. Report of the Governor of Arizona to the Secretary of the Interior. 1895. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1896. Journals of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1897. Phoenix: Herald Book & Job Office. 1897. Biennial Message of the Governor to the Twentieth Legislative Assembly. 1899*. Phoenix: Herald Electric Job Print, 1899. Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual WCTU Convention. 1901. Phoenix: Press of the Arizona Republicans, 1902. Revised Statutes of the Arizona Territory. 1901. Columbia, Missouri: Press of E. W. Stephens, 1901. 1 7 7 Minutes of the 1902 WCTU Convention. Phoenix: H, H. McNeil Co., 1903. Journal of the Twenty-Second Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. . n. d., n. p. Session Laws of the Twenty-Second Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1903. Phoenix: H. H. McNeil Co., 1903. Minutes of the WCTU Convention. 1906. Phoenix, n. d., n. p. Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty-Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 1907. Phoenix: H. H. McNeil Co., 1907. Journals of the Twenty-Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona.Phoenix: H. H. McNeil Co., 1907. Cherrington, Ernest (ed.). Anti-Saloon League Yearbook. 1909-1915. W esterville, Ohio: Anti-Saloon League Press, 1909-1915. Constitution for the State of Arizona. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1911. Minutes of the Twenty-Fifth Annual WCTU Convention. Phoenix: H. H. -McNeil Co., 1909. Minutes of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Arizona. Phoenix: Press of Phoenix Printing Company, 1910. Dunseath, James R. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court o f the T erritory o f Arizona from January 1910 to Mav. 1911. CXXXIII. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1911. Minutes of the 1912 WCTU Convention. Phoenix: H. H. McNeil Go., 1912. Acts. Resolutions and Memorials of the First Legislative Session of the State of Arizona. Phoenix: H. H. McNeil Co., 1912. Initiative and Referendum Publicity Pamphlet for the Regular General Election. November 3. 1914. n. d., n. p. Journals of the Twenty-Second Annual Convocation of the Episcopal Church. Missionary D istrict of Arizona. 1914. 1 7 8 Books, Pamphlets, Articles

Anthony, Susan B. and Harper, Ida Husted. History of Woman Suffrage. Vol. IV. Indianapolis: Hollenbeck Press, 1902. Arizona Issue. August 1910 to September 1915. As bury, Herbert. The Great Illusion. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Company, 1950. Barclay, Wade Crawford. The Methodist Episcopal Church. 1845-1939. Vol. Ill: Widening Horizons. New York: Board of Missions of the Methodist Church, 1957. Baron, Stanley. Brewed in America: A History of Beer and Ale in the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1962. Boehringer, C. Louise. "Josephine Brawley Hughes, Crusader and Statebuilder." Arizona Historical Review, II, No. 4 (January, 1930), pp. 98-107. Brown L. Ames. "Suffrage and Prohibition." North American Review. CCIII (January, 1916), p. 100. "The Builders of a State." Arizona Magazine. I , No. 3 (August, 1910), p. 7. Catt, Carrie Chapman and Shuler, Nettie Rogers. Woman Suffrage and P olitics. New York: Charles Scribner's S o n s ,1926. Cherrington, Ernest (ed.). Standard Encyclopedia of the Alcohol Problem. 8 vols. Westerville, Ohio: Anti-Saloon League Press, 1925. Connors, Jo (comp.). Who's Who in Arizona. Tucson: Press of Arizona Daily Star, 1913. Currie. B. W. "The Transformation of the Southwest Through the Legal Abolition of Gambling." Century Magazine. LXXV, pp. 905-910. Earhart, Mary. Frances Willard, From Prayers to P olitics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944. Flexner, Eleanor. A Century of Struggle: Woman's Rights Movements in the United S ta te s . Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1959. j 179 Gordon, Anna A. The Life of Frances Willard. Evanston: Woman's Christian Temperance League Press, 1912. Grant, Ernest. "The Liquor Traffic Before the Eighteenth Amendment,11 in P roh ib ition : A N ational Experiment. Philadelphia: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CLXIII, 1931. Gusfiled, Joseph. Symbolic Crusade - Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement. Urbana: Uni- versity of Illinois Press, 1963. Harper, Ida Husted (ed.). History of Woman Suffrage. Vol. VI. New York: J. J. Little and Ives Company, 1922. Historical and Biographical Record of the Territory of Arizona.C hicago: McFarland and Poole, 1896. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Coup any, 1955. ______. The Progressive Era, 1900 to 1920. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Hughes, Louis C. S ta te o f Arizona: Infant Commonwealth o f the Republic, n. d., n. p. "Initiated Legislation." Arizona Magazine. II, No. 4 (August, 1914),.p. 8. Johnson, Allen and Malone, Dumas. Dictionary of American Biography. Vbl IV, Part 1. Kelly, George H. Legislative History of Arizona. 1864- 1912. Phoenix: Manufacturing Stationers Inc., 1926. Krout, John A. The Origins of Prohibition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925. "Lights and Shades of Arizona." Leslie's Illustrated Monthly (March 22, 1894), p. 193. . Lockwood, Frank C. Pioneer Days in Arizona. New York: Macmillan C o., 1932. McClintock, James H. Arizona. The Youngest State. 3 Vols. Chicago: S. J. Clarke Co., 1916. Merz, C harles. The Drv Decade. New York: Doubleday, Doran and C o., 1931. 180 Odegard, Peter. Pressure Politics, the Storv of the .Anti-Saloon League. New York: Columbia University Press, 1928. "Our Woman Senator." Arizona Magazine. V., No. 4 (February, 1915), p. 4. Parker, Carleton H. "Why Arizona Went Dry." New Republic. I, No. 10 (January 9, 1915), p. 20. Reeves, John Alden. "Arizona’s Statehood - the Constitu­ tional Convention of Arizona." Arizona Magazine. I, No. 4 (December, 1910), pp. 12-14. Ross, Margaret Wheeler. The Tale is Told, A History of the Arizona Federation of Women's Clubs and its Forerunners. n. d., n. p. Sims, William J. Southern Methodism in Arizona, n. p ., 1950. Timberlake, James H. Prohibition and the Progressive Movement. Cambridge: Harvard U n iv ersity P ress, 19631 "Which Western States Will Go Dry?" New Republic. I, No. 10 (January 9, 1915), p. 20.