University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Great Plains Quarterly Great Plains Studies, Center for

1987

Prohibition and the Kansas Progressive Example

Patrick G. O'Brien Emporia State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly

Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons

O'Brien, Patrick G., "Prohibition and the Kansas Progressive Example" (1987). Great Plains Quarterly. 355. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/355

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Quarterly by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PROHIBITION AND THE KANSAS PROGRESSIVE EXAMPLE

PATRICK G. O'BRIEN

Wets and drys freely exchanged epithets as the country's attention on the state. Of greater Kansas began the twentieth century. They consequence than "hatchetations," which agreed only upon the fact of mass violations of closed few saloons permanently and made the prohibition. Kansas was dry in law and had perpetrators as lawless as the jointists, was the local option in reality; and cities like Wichita, renewed and assiduous political activity of Kansas City, and Leavenworth had open drys. They concentrated on the election of saloons that conducted business on main local officials committed to prohibition en­ streets in full public view. Kansas had a vast forcement, and could cite successes early in the amount of "wet" territory, but estimates varied twentieth century. Salina, for example, elected on exactly how much. One report of the an enforcement mayor and changed its munic-, Kansas Temperance Union stated that two­ ipal ordinances. Doing so, drys claimed, would thirds of the 129 cities and towns surveyed in lower taxes, increase community Improve­ 1900 ignored prohibition laws.! ments, and help business. This situation created a "New Kansas

Crusade" to resolve the contradiction of PROf !!BIT!O!\ AND PRe )(JPfSSIVISM widespread wetness in an officially dry state. The crusade turned militant as Carry A. Dry gain:; at the polls also reflected the fact Nation and her saloon "hatchetations" riveted that prohibition was part of Kansas progressive reform. Although historiam have tended to regard the two as sep:lrdtc, the\' were philo­ Patrick G. O'Brien is director of the Center for sophically compatihle and l,ulitic;dly fused in Great Plains Studies at Emporia State University. Kansas. That fusion resulted III ;1 sliccession of He has published articles in Agricultural Histo­ dry and reform governors from l'l(l') to I C) j lJ ry, Wisconsin Magazine of History and other who left a progressive impf!l!t. "11 ,Ie] ell journals. expansive programs of great Cl bus!llcSS tion, stronger COllsurner pro«'l't iOIl, lIKrc,lscd labor benefits and rights, electoral and; 'arTY [GPQ 7 (Fall 1987): 219-231 ) reform, and fairer taxes.

219 22l' l~I\E!\T 1'L:\l0:S ()L'AR.TERLY. F:\LL 19S,

The po,;itio n of t hcsl' go\-ernor:; o n prohibi­ model dry state, which inflated the prohib i­ tio n was based on the progrcssi\'e model of tionist sentiment that culminated in the Eigh ­ society, Curbin g explo itation, promoting pub­ teenth Amendment. lic and person al vi rtue, and suppressi ng threats Lack of cando r was not the governo rs' o nly to the public \\'elfare, all goals of t he proh ib i­ divergence from progressive ideals. A lthough tion is ts, \\'(' re comi,tem with rrogress ive ideol­ ideologicall y against pri vate influence in gov­ ogv. T he governors perccived no d ifference ernment, they h ad few qualms about dry between regul ating greedy businessmen and arrogati on of power. Prohibitio nist organiza­ eradicating boo tleggers-both endange red t he tio ns formed a nearl y sy mb iotic union with public. Pro h ib ition \\'as beneficial to Kansas, in progressive administratio ns, which virtually the judgment of the governors, and that was gave them offi cial status. The prohibitio nists' the o nl y Justification they th o ught necessary. u nrestricted access to the governors and the T ypi ca l was Gcwernor Edward H och's cl aim fact that dry groups had authority com parable thar "proh ibiti on in Kansas is a great success. I to that of government raises serious questio ns do not beli eve there are 1,600,000 people of propriety. aI1\'\\'here on earth freer fro m the evil s of A preoccupatio n with enforcement divert­ intemperance and other \'ices, and who at the ed the state from significant problem s and led same time are more prosperous and h appy. " , to excesses. Laws fo r enforcing prohibitio n The progressive governo rs used unprece­ often invested public offi cers with exceptional dented state authority to excise the liquor powers and provided them addition al co mpen­ traffic , an d each \I'as confident th at Kansas satio n. This combination encouraged excesses could be wrung dry. Their confidence was not of authority and induced offi cers to neglect totallv baseless. A large portion of t he Kansas enforcement of sign ificant laws that did not populatio n of nati\'e stock and Protestant fa ith carry a pecuniary reward. The extent of offi cial favored prohibition. The fusio n of proh ibitio n m alfeasance cannot be stated exactly, but and progress ivism had made the d ry positio n charges were widespread. Some drys , as well as poli ticall y in\'ldnerable, Wets h ad never been wets, labeled enforcement as a perfectly legal as stro ng and united as drys , and th ey lost racket, though it contributed to official expe­ representation when t he D emocratic Pan y diency and pub lic cynicism. The governors discarded its h abitual anti-prohib ition declara­ sanctioned the system of enforcem ent and tion in 1904. With a dry m andate and sh at­ supported laws that both entren ch ed it and tered \Iet oppositio n, t he governors could clashed with citizens' rights. Instructive is the pursue their object ive of an absolutely dry 191 7 testimo ny of the Kansas attorney general Kansas with impu nity, Thev learned, h O\I'e\'er, supporting a law to m ake possession of intoxi­ that t he \ITt ' \\-ere obdur3te and resili en t. cating beverages a crime. S . M. Brewster This Brucie surveys th e efforts of the admitted that the proposed law would m ake progressive gO\'erno rs agail15t the li quor traffic " lawbreakers out of men wh o don 't abuse the and emphasi:es that their success \I'as qualified keepink [sic] of liquor, " but explained it was and entailed violation of progressive maxims. n ecessary to attain absolute enforcement." T he \'1olation in lmge part resu lted from the Although the laws were in theory to apply untenable pc)sitlon into \\'hich the governors u niformly to all Kansans, in practice they fe ll helped put rhcm::eln:s. Bv adopting extreme heavil y o n certain ethnic grou ps. Some offi­ l'nforcemenr policies and encouraging unrealis­ cials in locati ons with large foreign concentra­ tic dry expel~ tarions, they cou ld not adm it tio ns, like southeast Kansas, occasion all y tried £allure widwut repudiating their lHln cO I1\'ic­ to ex plain the fru stratio n of enforcement to

ti()l1S ;Jll d in\'iting dr\' repri' als. This dilemma the governors. A fe w even stated th at the induced t he governo rs to exaggerate the suc­ bootleggers wh o explo ited t he ig noran ce of the ce55 of their polieit';: and to portray Kansas as a immigrants were the biggest problem. Progres- mUllIBITll)N ANI) I'I{()( ;IZESSIVFS sive governors, having little patience with the reasons why immigrants defied prohihition, preferred drastic enforcement measures t( 1 education. Public attitudes enabled governors to take actions against the immigrants that would have heen unthinkahle tow;lrd other groups, hut those actions evoked litt Ie puhlic outrage and slight sympathy for the victims.

Prohihition 111 Kansas was definitely ;1 progressive reform, but it went ;lwry in some important respects. Its hlueprint was hased on a laudahle vision for society that failed when translated to an imperfect world. This was apparent in the enforcement convulsions of the progressive Kansas administrations frorn 1905 to 19I 1).

Progressive Republican, editor of the Mmi on Record, ;md staunch prohibitionist, Gover­ nor Edward Hoch began his first adminis­ tration in 1905 with a vow to cooperate "to the FIG. 1. GOVl'mOT Edward Hoch. Courtesy K:111S:1S full extent of official power" with the Kans;ls St:1te Historic:11 Society, TopeL!. Temperance Union. 11e invoked t he responsi­ bility of his office, not personal predilection, as his reason to enforce prohihition. An end to prohibition violations was not "a quest ion of It W;lS one thing to pn)(\;lim t h;lt K;lIIS;lS temperance or even morality," according to would stamp out the liquor tr:llk, hUI II(Kh him, hut "simply a question of law enforce­ quickly learned it was another to do so. fie ment." Although Hoch once conceded "there gravely 1I1llkrcslimated till' s(,dl' ()f vi()hti')ll'" may be a question as to majority ... senti­ He considered the prohihitory I:l\\' "Llirlv w(,l! ment in favor of prohibition," he was certain enforced" in 1')0 pencllt o! till' j()') K;111'.;I:, of "the rnajority in favor of law enforcement." counties, hased Up011 his :,urvcy (,: «HiIJt\

As governor, therefore, he was only respond­ officials. A leading !H'\VSpapcr g(l! I1HilC' )'(' ; ill'; ing to the people of Kansas, who "demand the tic results frOln its ClJlV;lSS of I~ I count ics, enforcement of the law whether they arc finding only 23 where offici:d:-:: genuinely tried prohibitionists or not."" Hoch's attempt to to enforce the bw. Eighteen were (lIK'llly wet) separate enforcement frOln the prohihition with 41')0 "Iiccnsed" s;do()lIs :llHI ;111 lJl1Vl'rJfinl issue itself in order to avoid emotional dehate number of liquor joints. and political repercussions was hoth transpa­ Public officials could he ex hurt cd t () do rent and unsuccessful. their duty, hut governors h;ld limit cd lIll'ans III In a departure from the policies of previous compel them. f loch first tried persll:lsion wit h governors, Hoch denounced saloon licensing a letter to every sheriff :llld (Hlllty ;l((orllcy and warned local officials of the consequences urging the enforcement ()f the Ll\\,. I\('~;ults if they failed to enforce the law. His promise to were mixed, and Ho(h ( l[Hludcd t h:lt (1)(' squeeze Kansas dry and his firm statement on letters "resulted in IlHllh guud in the srn:dln enforcement earned hirn the accolades of drys. towns and counties, hUI Ihl'v h;ld lIllie dln I ill the brger citieo." GO\'ernor Hoch could bluntly rejoined, "Damn the law." appoint assistilnt attorne"s general with exten­ A clash between Governor Hoch and sive authority to cIlfcm:e pmhibition in thL' ~layor RC):ie wa, perhaps inevitable, but the counties. During hi" fir"t \'eilr in office he decision to close Missouri saloons on Sundays followed through hy "appointing attorneys in precipitated it. Calling the closing a farce, Rose every CUlIntv when' we think [hey are refused to follow the Missouri example. needed.'" By the middle of 1006, he com­ Thirst\" crowds surged across the state line into mented on their lIne\'cn :;ueeess, and indiL'ated Kansas City, Kansas, saloons and the subse­ his pri\'ate skepticism when he \\Tute, "I have quent storm of protest led Hoch to have ouster appointed. . eight or nine assistant attornev suits filed against the mavor and county generals, but with few exceptions the result has attorney. Rose, offering no defense, resigned not been very satisfactory." Obviously, the two clays before the Kansas Supreme Court problems that had confronted public official" declared him ousted, but he immediately filed in many counties also stvmied those appointed as a candidate for the office he had vacated by Hoch; and certain of the assistant attorneys and won the special election on 8 May 1906. In general were accused of ineptitude and malfea­ a campaign waged along wet and dry lines, he sance, \X1hen local officials were completely called prohibition a "curse" while his oppo­ refractory, Hoch's last resort was to initiate nent promised to close the joints; this ensured ouster proceedings. Even this extreme measure Rose the opposition of the Civic League, law did not always get impressive results. enforcers, and church folk. Rose's victory The enforcement powers of the governors margin of 1,441 votes out of 12,495 may be a were limited by budget. Hoch and his succes­ commentary on the proportion of godly and sors habitually complained about the paltry law-abiding citizens in Kansas City. The enforcement contingency fund. Stark econ­ election was a rebuff of Hoch, hut it only omy forced Hoch to concentrate his enforce­ marked a setback in a fight that the governor ment efforts and resources where prohibition would soon win. When Rose resumed office, violations were flagrant and chronic: Kansas the Kansas attorney general instituted con­ City, Wichita, and Crawford and Cherokee tempt proceedings against him, and the Kan­ counties." Even the pretense of prohibition sas Supreme Court on 6 July 1906 fined Rose compliance had been abandoned in Kansas and ordered him to quit office. City, where drunkenness purportedly made While Hoch enjoyed accolades from the the streets unsafe for women. The city became drys for his action against Kansas City offi­ Hoch's primary enforcement target, and the cials, attorney C. W. Trickett led an enforce­ resulting uproar attracted national attention. ment offensive in the city. The effort was Because his imbroglio with Kansas City offi­ intense: reports of raids, arrests, and saloon cials, especially the mayor, was long and hitter, closings were common news items. A degree of the enforcement drive was less than a complete success in drying up Kansas City could he ,md permanent success. William \\/. Rose, a legitimately claimed, and a Southern Method­ Henrv George single-taxer and heliever in ist Church steward wrote that, with the joint municipal ownership of utilities who had heen closings, "insted [sic} of seeing a dozen drunk­ elected mayor in 1905, eschewed hypocrisy en men pass my house I only saw one last and used the saloons to raise revenues. Joint Sunday."ll Some observers, however, thought keepers regularly put up bonds that were the situation little changed, except that boot­ forfeited to the city treasury when the jointists leggers were more furtive, saloons better con­ failed to appear in court. Mayor Rose was cealed, and customers more cautious. When honest in collections and freely admitted to Alabamians visited Kansas City in 1907 to anyone that the system existed: when rebuked judge its dryness, they reported that they had for violating the prohibitinn statutes, he "bought and paid for five hottles of whiskey, at fi \'e locations," , set back in his admmi;.:rrc1t ioI! , Kans d::' \\a;; sull G O\'ernor H och asserted that the Kansas \\'et when he ler't ,)fflLe. Yet H Cl:h , Cit\' campaign "broke the b ack of la \\ l e~~ne5::" that the and "made t he enforcement of the !a\\' in other could effuse, "\\'c afe re C1! ' i n~ C1 :~e\ \ ~-i \ !k a t ic' n cities much easier." - T hat claim is not readilv here and to a Kansas I ~l dn fan:. ilu f \\ id:. these subst antiated b\' his experience \\'i t h \\'ichita good thmgs it seem" lCl c~ redib le." l:-li~ e \l­ a nd the southeast Kamas cou nties, \\ 'ichita denee : 'IO f th. e 1 \.~ 5 (~()~lnti. e~ . . lJrl h.- : 1 hd\ "e was as we t \\'hen H och rook office as it had am' paupers, Thirt\ -fi\c ha\e their clbso­ been in its cowwwn era, and his campaign lutel\' em pt\. Thirt\'-se\'en h2\'C no ([,fmnal there paralleled that in Kansas C it\" A general cases o n their docketS , Kan53s has the :sm,~ llest impression \\a5 th at as man\' saloons \\ ere in n u mber of paupefS o f an\' State in pro;Junion business after t he campaign as befo re , al­ to population. It 5pend~ more mo ne\' tor though a large number had probabh' closed education in proportion to its than temporarih', Onl\, one sa loon was shut perma­ anv other State, ":. nently- after someone took a carn ival el­ eph an t there and got it drunk, enraged animal lovers closed th e saloon, In Crawfo rd and Cherokee counties, p ro­ Progressive R epu l~lican \:\' alter .-\. Stubbs, h ibitio n offensi\-es, without exception termed inaugurated in 1909 , \\35 more ::e alods. H och successful, \\"C re fo ll O\\'ed b\' rene\\'ed bootleg­ h ad m ade inroads against the traffic : ging and the reopening of saloons; then the cycle would be repeated, As in the case of Kansas Cit\' and \'\'ich ita, H och cou ld show gai ns in terms of arrests, convictio ns, and saloon closings ; but these counties \\'ith large immigrant populations \\'ere never drv \\, hile he \\'as governor. - Other portio ns of the state sho wed no ch ange, and t h is led prohibition ists \\'ho had earlier expressed unstinting praise for the governor to chide him, Angered, H och asserted , "Conditions arc ben er toda\' , . , than thev have been si nce the law \\'as passed," and complained, "I am ge tting fa­ tigued with criticism fr o m people \\' ho ought to be commend ing me." Once eager to expand state respon sibility in enfo rcement, H och cam e to belie\'e that local attitudes were a large part of the problem , He concluded that "the people must lear n not to sh ift the responsibil ity to some distant authoritv, to the G overnor or attorney general, but must gra\'elv b ear it themseh"es, " , H och could legitimateh' declare, "1 h 2\'e do ne more to enforce the prohibitot\, la\\' than an\' gover nor of the state . . . in fifteen vears. " , But he con sistently embell ished h is successes and hid his fa il ures and pri\-ate FIG , 2. GOt emOT W·'den A, Swbbs. C ourtesy fru strations. Although the liquor traffic \\'as Kansas State H istorical Society, Topeka. 224 GREAT PLAI]\;S QUARTERLY, FALL 1987

Stubbs was determined to eradicate it. The the ethics of enforcement practices. 1909 bone-dry law, which easily passed the Perhaps Stubbs's least conscionable act was legislature and banned the sale of liquor for a conspiracy against Italian mining camps that any reason, was his favorite tool. Although the had proved refractory. An advisor suggested previous law, allowing restricted sale for specif­ that Stubbs use an Anti-Horse Thief League to ic purposes, could not be enforced, drys destroy the Italian camps, accomplishing all maintained that the more comprehensive and that the militia could "but without the odium stringent new law would make enforcement of its being said the militia was used to enforce easier. They were only partially correct. Prohi­ prohibition."" While the League was being bitionists could claim that stricter laws ren­ reconstituted, conspirators in Topeka ob­ dered Kansas drier, but that claim could be tained weapons, gathered men from the gover­ refuted by the increased number of violations nor's office and the Kansas Temperance Union of the new law. This dilemma may explain the to assist with the mission, and "mapped out a oscillation of the drys between deploring mass line of action."" With an announcement that a violation of the law and praising the dryness of volunteer association with the legal power to Kansas. smash the liquor traffic had been formed, the Like Hoch, Stubbs concentrated on egre­ Topeka men were ordered into southeast giously wet spots, but he made Crawford and Kansas. When District Judge E. E. Sapp Cherokee counties his first priority. His 1909 learned of their arrival and threatened to have and 1910 campaigns against them made them arrested if they proceeded with the plot, Hoch's pale by comparison, but it is nearly the men returned to Topeka. Governor impossible to gauge Stubbs's success.:: Enforce­ Stubbs openly proclaimed that he would use ment varied widely according to location and the militia if necessary and warned he would time; it was not unusual to have a location end prohibition violations "even if I have to certified dry one week and reported wet the smash and burn the wagons that carry the beer next. The saloons in many of the mining and tear down the houses in which beer is camps and small towns never closed. Closed sold." Sapp rejoined that the use of militia saloons often reopened, or their closing led to would be an "armed invasion" and he would an increase in kitchen joints, clubs, and personally lead citizens against it." An armed bootlegging. Stubbs could perhaps claim prog­ confrontation was avoided. ress against the liquor traffic, but his frequent Stubbs began his last and most ambitious contention that Kansas had no open saloons campaign against liquor interests in southeast and was drier than ever before in its history Kansas in late 1912. Again, the enforcement was dubious. Frustrated by these failures, gains may have been genuine, but they were Stubbs pulled out all stops to suppress the short-lived. On 3 January 1913 an agent in southeast Kansas liquor traffic. He threatened southeast Kansas reported "Conditions down public officials he considered tepid on enforce­ here and especially in Cherokee County are ment or in collusion with violators with bad."!; Predictably, Stubbs did not make this expulsion from office and carried out some of final report public. these threats. He used undercover agents, While the governor ignored violations in usually endorsed by the Kansas Temperance many locations, he pronounced Kansas vir­ Union, who habitually violated the prohibi­ tually dry, basing his claims upon his intense tion and vice laws in order to obtain evidence. and publicized campaigns in selected wet cities. Their written reports and itemized expense Stubbs's attempts to dry them out often had accounts confirm that they engaged in many the same results as in Crawford and Cherokee unsavory activities to make Kansas dry and counties, and he was just as unwilling to virtuous.!' The use of agents who were them­ concede limits to his success. Progressive selves lawbreakers raises serious doubts about governors wanted Topeka, the capital city, to PROHIBITI01'\ AND PROGRESSIVES 225 be a dry example, yet one of Stubbs's agents aged Kansas governors to describe the state in informed him in mid 1912 that "I find ... T 0- terms that were incongruous with wet realities. peka in a very wet condition and have seen Governor Stubbs issued habitual assurances liquor unloaded in 25 or 30 ... joints."" Only that Kansas was "the driest state in the ten days later, Stubbs wrote W. F. Turrentine, union." He tried to conceal the real conditions a small-town newspaper editor who had re­ and convey the sense to the country that ported violations in Topeka, "I do not believe prohibition was a great success. While Wichita there is a single place where liquor is sold over was "wide open" and complaints of violations the bar. "29 To justify his claim, the governor in Crawford and Cherokee counties flooded ordered the Shawnee County attorney to his office, Stubbs informed a California prohi­ eradicate any liquor traffic, and the chastened bitionist, "There is not an open joint in the official explained that the "exaggerated" stories state today according to reports received this of violations resulted from the political malice morning."" He expanded his claims when he of disaffected Germans. i,' answered an inquiry from Idaho with the Conditions in Wichita frustrated every statement that "every city in Kansas above governor and perhaps Stubbs the most. He twenty-five thousand is absolutely dry."" This told the mayor in late 1911 that the "state of was about the time that Stubbs's own agent lawlessness existing in Wichita ... is absolute­ reported that Topeka was "very wet." Stubbs ly intolerable. "ll Stubbs threatened officials, and the rest of the governors convinced the unleashed agents, and held the Kansas attor­ nation that prohibition worked, but they ney general personally liable in a campaign to would be largely responsible for the derision of crush the illegal Wichita liquor business. The Kansans when the country became disaffected first results were negligible, but progress did with Prohibition in the next generation. follow.]2 Drys and some local politicians later asserted briefly that Wichita had been drained GOVERNOR GEORGE H. HODGES: 1913-1915 of "suds" and "rotgut," but while Stubbs probably made it more expensive and inconve­ Democrat George H. Hodges, Stubbs's nient for Wichitans to drink, he could not stop successor, stated unequivocally that prohibi­ them. In Wichita, as in many other targeted tion was the "best law Kansas ever put on its cities, the liquor traffic survived through statute books," and he promised his adminis­ caution, adaptiveness, and official leniency. tration would be a model of enforcement." When joints became less visible, many san­ Hodges had inviolate dry convictions, but guine drys reached the unwarranted conclu­ zealots feared that the Democrat would be sion that the liquor traffic had been tepid on enforcement. Their qualms had a permanently dealt with, that customers had germ of validity although there is no evidence become teetotalers from necessity. Stubbs's that he was influenced by the fact that a self-congratulation about Wichita was inter­ disproportionate number of violators would rupted by a packing-house manager who told probably be Democrats. Learning perhaps him that "before the town went dry, we had from his predecessors, the new governor but very little drinking among our employees, discarded highly publicized campaigns and since then, not a single day goes by but what a loud rhetoric. This may have appeared passive, half dozen or so have to be sent home or but the emphasis on quiet, grassroots enforce­ permanently discharged for intoxication."li ment had few political liabilities. Dry gains could be deceptive. Hodges granted local officials the primary Kansas had the reputation as the temper­ responsibility to enforce prohibition laws, ance leader of all the states. Drys everywhere since the governor believed that "local law looked to it to confirm that prohibition really enforcements are much better than a sporadic worked, and a sense of responsibility encour- effort from people on the outside."" This was 226 GREAT PLAI:"-:S QL~RTERL Y, FALL jLJ87

asserted that "the prohibition law is far better enforced ... than it has ever been and we are doing this without brass, bands."c Perhaps Stubbs had earned some accolades for aggres­ sive campaigns, but massive publicity carried liabilities. By eschewing inflated publicity, Hodges could claim great success in his en­ deavor to close down joints and drive the bootleggers out of the state, and his claim could not be easily refuted in the absence of contrary publicity. Adhering to his announced policy of local responsibility, Hodges ignored pleas that had worked with earlier governors. For instance, the Citizens League of Cherokee County wired Hodges on 1 Julv 1913: "\Ve need help a minister assaulted today by a mob of jointists and dangerously injured official."" Help was not forthcoming. \Vhen the League wrote Governor Hodges the next month about joints and corrupt officials, his secretary answered: "Quit complaining and get the evidence [to] accomplish some real good for the cause of law enforcement in 'lour county.""' Hodges ap­ FIG. 3. Gotemor George H. Hodges. Courtesy peared nearly unconcerned about reports of Kansas State Historical Society , Topeka. violations. Information about open saloons in southeast Kansas provoked no great outburst of activity in the governor's office and neither did the complaint that t\\'o third-grade stu­ dents, who sold bottles in saloons, were under an unconcealed jab against Stubbs, who had the influence of whiskey at the school> rashly intruded into local situations, and an Hodges was not lackadaisical, however; he had endorsement of Hoch's earlier position. a different strategy for suppressing the liquor Hodges also renounced selective campaigns traffic. against "soaking wet" locations and supported Prohibition enforcement was "primarilv in uniform state\\'ide enforcement. "\Ve do not the hands of the people," according to Hodges, expect," he explained, "to pick out any partic­ and they could best attain it when they "elect ular locality and use extraneous effort to men who are in svmpathy with law enforce­ enforce the laws in that localitv, while other ment, and if thev fail to keep their pre-election portions of the state are dealt more leniently promises, to relegate them to private life at the \\'ith. Hodges did not bother to note that next election." Elementary civics, widely ig­ limited resources made it impossible for the nored bv many drys, indicated that "public state assiduousk to enforce prohibition everv­ officers will respect dominant public senti­ where. ment. If 'lOU have a strong sentiment for the The contrast between Stubbs and Hodges enforcement of the law in your community, was pronounced. The former's campaigns were 'lOU will get it enforced. If 'lOU do not have attended bv eXpanSl\'e publicit\· while the such a sentiment, 'lour public officers latter subscribed to quiet enforcement. Hodges will ... be lax.""' Although this sounds as if PROHIBITION Al'-:D PROCJRESSIVES 227

Hodges favored a local option solution, he had "Our people know and appreciate the bles­ perceived a change in public attitudes that sings-material, moral, and spiritually which entailed a change in enforcement tactics. have come to them because they have not Whereas Kansans earlier had been closely been cursed by the saloon and its attendant divided on prohibition, Hodges discerned that vices."" Yet, Capper's own papers belie his the dry territory was growing, as indicated by claims. the election of town, city, and county officials Soon after the assumption of office, Gover­ on dry platforms. If the problem had once nor Capper ordered investigations in Kansas been to secure public compliance with prohibi­ City and Wyandotte County. As a result, tion, the greater problem now was to ensure misconduct charges were filed against the that elected officials enforced the laws. Kansas City election commissioner for neglect­ Hodges, therefore, concentrated on them, and ing his duties while he lobbied in Topeka one of his principal enforcement policies was against anti-liquor legislation, and grounds to bring ouster suits against officials deemed were revealed for an ouster suit against a remiss in their duties. Wyandotte County commissioner. Although Soon after he assumed office, Hodges these officials were not specifically charged convinced himself that he had made Kansas with prohibition violations, the investigation virtually dry. When a citizen complained in had revealed widespread vice and wetness. January 1913 of widespread liquor violations in One operative informed the governor: "I have Cherokee County, Hodges replied, "Your part succeeded in finding out that drinking and of the state is perhaps no worse than a great gambling is in full blast in the Slav colonies, many other 10calities."44 By April he boasted and, as I understand it, is being done under that, in stemming violations, "we are succeed­ police protection. "'" Investigators visiting ing now as never before."" By May Kansas had premises filed reports in the vein of "Joint at "very little bootlegging and very few joints."" 615 Ferry was running full blast today. Men­ And finally in July he declared that there was women and even children were there and "not an open saloon in the state."': Hodges drinking keg beer. This place is running and had mentally transformed Kansas from a wet has been ... for more than a year and I saw a state to an arid one within six months. It was policeman in full uniform in there.";" These easier to declare Kansas dry and enjoy the confidential reports make especially interesting benefits than to attempt to make it so and reap reading in the light of the intermittent asser­ the consequences of failure. Although he was tions since Hoch that Kansas City was dry. defeated for reelection in 1914, Hodges left Indicative of the situation in Wichita was office with a national reputation as an inveter­ the arrest in 1915 of Police Chief O. K. ate prohibitionist and the next year became an Stewart for selling confiscated whiskey in city Anti-Saloon League lecturer. hall. Three wagonloads of whiskey and beer stored there were dumped in the Arkansas River several days later. A Wichita city GOVERNOR ARTHUR CAPPER: 1915-1919 commissioner informed Capper in 1916 that Republican Arthur Capper would become "the town has not been as open in years as it one of America's foremost prohibitionists and has been now for several months."" Kansas leader of the Farm Bloc while in the U.S. Attorney General S. M. Brewster, however, Senate. Capper congratulated the country in acceded to the pleas of the Sedgwick County 1918 on the fact that if would soon join dry attorney and of Henry J. Allen-prohibi­ Kansas and enjoy the same benefits. "Prohibi­ tionist, newspaper publisher, and next gover­ tion has been an unqualified success from nor-to avoid state intervention. i. Later every standpoint in Kansas," he authoritative­ convinced that local officials were not diligent­ ly informed the nation, and unctuously added, ly dealing with violators, Brewster demanded 228 GREAT PLAI]\;S QUARTERLY, FALL 1987 that the county attorney indicate why the leadership in prohibition laws and law enforce­ state should not become involved. The county ment," the legislature passed a bill that made attorney evaded a direct answer, but admitted possession of alcoholic beverages a misdemean­ that the law was being violated, enumerated or. It was signed by Capper on 23 February the obstacles to enforcement, and offered no 1917 in the lower house chamber, "while 150 hope that conditions would improve until legislators stood around the speaker's rostrum local officials had greater authority, higher and sang with gusto 'No One Knows How Dry budgets, and larger staffs. " I Am.' "s; The national press agreed with Habitually wet Cherokee and Crawford Kansas drys that the law was one of the most counties posed problems. The Crawford coun­ drastic prohibition measures ever enacted in ty attorney, however, wrote Capper, "I fell [sic] any state. confident that conditions are improving in our Capper insisted that the law curbed the use county ... and I also fell [sic] confident that of alcohol but Kansas still was not dry. conditions will continue to improve."'" The Southeast Kansas continued to be a bane to attorney of the adjacent county was less the governor, and the missionary societies of optimistic. Prohibition convictions were down, the Neosho Presbytery complained in May and he recounted problems with enforcement: 1918 of flagrant violations of prohibition in Crawford and Cherokee counties." A growing Many of our inhabitants are foreigners who bootlegging industry in the two southeastern are accustomed to the daily use of beer and counties would subsequently become a large other intoxicants and sentiment among supplier of illegal liquor to the rest of the these people is naturally against the prohib­ country. The 1931 Wickersham Report on itory law. The violation of this law usually prohibition enforcement commented on the occurs in residences, and it is quite difficult bootleggers' "fine brands of whiskey," which to obtain evidence necessary to secure they claimed "compares well with the best convictions. Attention may also be called Government or legitimate alcohol. "5' to the fact that Cherokee County is located After passage of the 1917 bone-dry legis­ in the extreme south-east corner of the state lation, Capper regarded "irresponsible" neigh­ on the border of Missouri and Oklahoma. bors, especially Missouri, as the cause of This ... adds to the difficulty of enforcing enforcement problems. He habitually ap­ this law." pealed, with slight success, for the Missouri governor to help stop the flow of liquor into Such violations embarrassed state officials in Kansas. Capper proposed a "sanitary zone" 1916 when a Pathe Weekly News newsreel between the two Kansas Citys with no saloon showed wagons loaded with beer and liquor in within six hundred feet of Kansas, and pro­ Drydale, Missouri, for delivery into Kansas tested against the Missouri saloons and distille­ and streams of thirsty Kansans crossing the ries that lured Kansas customers.'" A bitter line with jugs and bottles. The mockingly exchange ensued between officials of the two named Drydale, located just across the river states. Kansas authorities accused Missouri from Leavenworth, had enough saloons to county officials of negligence and even culpa­ supply many Kansans. Offended by the news­ bility, and the Missouri officials issued angry reel, the state censor board banned it in countercharges. One conceded that "condi­ Kansas." tions on the line have been bad," but rebuked The 1917 Kansas bone-dry law was de­ Kansas officials for failure to give those in signed to eliminate the bulk of enforcement Missouri "the support they could or should." problems. Informed by Wayne B. Wheeler, Charging that Kansas authorities made "no general counsel of the Anti-Saloon League, effort" to prevent their citizens from bringing that the "whole country looks to Kansas for liquor into their state, a second Missourian PROHIBITIO]\; AND PROGRESSIVES 229 complained, "I am getting tired, of those ment campaigns and growing dry sentiment officers in Kansas continually howling when may have lessened violations, but Kansas was ... they are not in good faith, and ... in the not bone-dry on the eve of national Prohibi­ Northern part of Cherokee County and in tion. Crawford County, Kansas, a number of Kansas governors from Hoch through Greeks are running joints openly, publicly and Capper subscribed to prohibition on the on Sunday and are never arrested."'i Cooper­ progressive grounds that it would raise the ation eluded the officials of the two states, and moral standards of society and ensure the there is no evidence that the entry of liquor advance of humanity, but prohibition was not into Kansas was curbed. Missouri officials may the only progressive reform that undermined have been remiss in enforcement, but so were the principles on which it was based. The Kansas authorities, especially in the southeast­ excesses and hypocrisy of the Eighteenth ern part of the state. Capper sincerely wished Amendment, not its idealism, have heen to stop the interstate liquor traffic, but it was ingrained in American consciousness, a result easier for him to rail against Missourians than that could have been predicted, had the to enforce compliance in Kansas. Kansas governors realistically appraised their experience. Perhaps the country would have forgiven the dismal aspects of Prohibition had CONCLUSION it delivered what it promised. Kansas provided Kansas prohibitionists believed that out­ a case in point that absolute prohibition was side wet influences contributed appreciably to unattainable. violations after 1917. The legislature's eager ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment reflected in part the conviction that a dry NOTES nation was needed to make Kansas genuinely 1. Secondary sources on Prohibition in Kansas dry. Upset that a truly dry Kansas did not at the turn of the century with estimates on the materialize during national Prohibition, a new scale of violations include Charles Moreau Harger, generation of governors readily found new "Kansas Prohibition Status," Independent 53 (21 explanations for wetness. Like the earlier February 1901): 403-42; C. H. Matson, "How Prohibition Works in Kansas," Outlook 74 (22 progressive governors, they usually did so August 1903): 981-84; and William Allen White, without serious examination of their own "Carrie Nation and Kansas," Saturday Evening Post position. 173 (6 April 1901): 2-3. The progressive governors' habitual claim 2. The basic reference on the progressive ration­ that Kansas was the driest state, though ale for prohibition as a reform is James H. Timber­ lake, Prohibition and the Progressive MO{lement, excessive, was not totally without foundation. 1900-1920 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, A large portion of the Kansas population did 1963). Robert Sherman La Forte, Leaders of Reform: not drink and lived in nearly dry communities. Progressive Republicans in Kansas, 1900-1916 (Law­ Drys, however, either misunderstood or rence: University Press of Kansas, 19(4), is authori­ misrepresented the relationship between legal tative on progressivism. Its treatment of prohibition is limited but helpful on the reform's role in the compulsion and Kansas abstemiousness. Many progressive scheme and state politics. Kansans eschewed liquor because of personal 3. Edward Hoch to David W. Ross, 7 August belief, not because of the legal proscription. 1907, "Prohibition." box 9, Governor Hoch Papers The real test of prohibition occurred where it (hereafter cited as Hoch Papers), Archives Division, clashed with a population that did not oppose Kansas Center for Historical Research, Topeka, Kansas. This section of the article is based upon my drinking, and it was less than a resounding systematic examination and interpretation of the success. Prohibition was naturally the hardest official papers of the Kansas governors and not to enforce in exactly the spots where the necessarily on specific statements contained in governors concentrated their efforts. Enforce- them. The governors neither wrote introspectively 230 (JREAT PLA1~5 Ql.1ARTERLY, FALL 1987 about possible contradictions between philosophy example, his reports and expense accounts in and practice nor adduced evidence that detracted "Prohibition," box 8, Stubbs Papers. from their pulicies. A more sympathetic examina­ 24. C. W. Trickett to Walter R. Stubbs, 22 May tion of the governors with a different basis of 1911,Ibid. analysis is found in Robert Smith Bader, Prohibition 25. H. C. Ericsson to Walter R. Stubbs, 30 May in Kansas: A History (Lawrence: University Press of 1911, Ibid. Kansas, 1986). 26. A summary of the confrontation between 4. Topeka Daily Capital, 20 February 1917. Stubbs and Judge E. E. Sapp is in the St. Louis Post­ 5. Ibid., 16 February 1905. Dispatch, 25 June 1911. 6. Ibid., 22, 24, and 17 October 1905. 27. T. B. Armstrong to Walter R. Stubbs, 3 7. Girard Press, 8 June 1905. January 1913, "Prohibition," box 11, Stubbs Papers. 8. Topeka Daily Capital, 14 May 1905. 28. T. B. Armstrong to Walter R. Stubbs, 31 9. Edward Hoch to F. G. Severance, 3 June July 1912, "Prohibition," box 10, Ibid. 1908, "Prohibition," box 9, Hoch Papers. 29. Walter R. Stubbs to W. F . Turrentine, 10 10. Topeka Daily Capital, 3 December 1905. August 1912, Ibid. II. Ibid., 22 July 1906. Edward Hoch to B. F. 30. Walter R. Stubbs to Ernest R. Simon, 10 Lloyd, n.d., "Prohibition," box 9, Hoch Papers. August 1912; and Simon to Stubbs, 13 August 12. Edward Hoch to F. G. Severance, 3 June 1912, Ibid. 1908, Ibid. 31. Walter R. Stubbs to John H. Graham, 9 13. Useful summaries of the episode are in the September 1911, "Prohibition," box 8, Ibid. Topeka Daily Capital, 9 May and 7 July 1906; and 32. For reports on the effectiveness of the important background is in the Kansas City Star,S, campaign at various stages, see A. R. T arbill to 8, and IS April 1905. Walter R. Stubbs, 28 December 1911, "Prohibi­ 14. James Peebly to Edward Hoch, 3 October tion," box 10, Ibid.; and T. B. Armstrong to 1905, "Prohibition," box 9, Hoch Papers. Stubbs, 10 January 1912, "Prohibition," box 8, Ibid. IS. Binningham Age Herald, 16 October 1907. 33. Statement in a letter from Walter R. Stubbs 16. Edward Hoch to F. G. Severance, 3 June to Fred Dold, 26 February 1912, "Prohibition," box 1908, "Prohibition," box 9, Hoch Papers. 10, Ibid. 17. Conclusions on the campaigns in Wichita 34. Walter R. Stubbs to T. H. Minor, "Prohibi­ and in the southeast Kansas counties are based on tion," box 9, Ibid. the correspondence in the Hoch Papers, "Prohibi­ 35. Walter R. Stubbs to W. J. Herwig, 6 June tion," box 9, and newspapers, including the Pitts­ 1912, "Prohibition," box 10, Ibid. burg Headlight, Girard Press, and Topeka Daily 36. Governor's secretary to M. W. Sommers, 21 Capital. May 1913, "Prohibition," box 8, Papers of Gover­ 18. Edward Hoch to B. F. Lloyd, 5 May 1906; nor Hodges, Archives Division, Kansas Center for and Hoch to Charles E. Hall, 19 July 1906, Historical Research. "Prohibition," box 9, Hoch Papers. 37. George H. Hodges to P.]. Hendrickson, 10 19. Edward Hoch to Charles E. Hall, 6 July July 1913, "Prohibition," box 8, Papers of Governor 1906, Ibid. Hodges. 20. Edward Hoch to Milton]' Baucher, 24 38. George H. Hodges to W. T. Johnston, 12 September 1907, Ibid. April 1913, Ibid. 21. This was a typical homily on the benefits 39. George H. Hodges to P. S. Hendrickson, 10 that prohibition bestowed on Kansas. See, for July 1913, Ibid. example, Edward Hoch to Nelle G. Burger, 1 June 40. B. H. Holt to George H. Hodges, 1 July 1908, Ibid. 1913, Ibid. 22. Extensive documentation on the 1909-13 41. Governor Hodges's secretary to N annie enforcement campaigns in Crawford and Cherokee Arbuckle, 13 August 1913, Ibid. counties is contained in the "Prohibition" files, 42. A. S. Hiatt to George H. Hodges, 9 Feb­ boxes 8-11, of the Governor Stubbs Papers (here­ ruary 1914, Ibid. after cited as Stubbs Papers), Archives Division, 43. Executive Clerk to J. H. Wright, 28 March Kansas Center for Historical Research. The synthe­ 1913; and George H. Hodges to Guy W. sis in this article can only suggest the complexity, Wadsworth, 21 April 1913, Ibid. rancor, and scale of the cycle of campaigns. 44. George H. Hodges to G. C. Butler, 20 23. H. C. Ericsson was the principal and most January 1913, Ibid. voluble agent assigned to southeast Kansas. His 45. George H. Hodges to Guy W. Wadsworth, graphic, frequent, and extensive reports confirm the 21 April 1913, Ibid. debatable activities of prohibition spies. See, for 46. George H. Hodges to Howard 1. Andrews, rROHIB]T]l)~ AND rROe,RESS]VES 2)]

13 May 1913, Ibid. 1915, "Prohibition," box 12, Ihid. 47. George H. Hodges to Grant Victor, 9 July 55. E. W. Boss to Arthur Capper, 8 December 19IJ, Ibid. 1915, Ibid. 48. Arthur Capper to J. Frank Hanely, 5 56. Lucy Record Spaeth to Arthur Capper, 21 October 1918, "Prohibition," box 11, Papers of March 1916; Governor's secretary to Spaeth, 31 Governor Capper (hereafter cited as the Capper March 1916, "Prohibition," box 8, Ibid. Papers), Archives Division, Kansas Center for 57. Topeka Daih Capital, 20 and 24 Februarv Historical Research. The standard biography by 1917. Homer E. Socolofsky, Arthur Clpper, Publisher, 58. Arthur Capper to Mrs. \Villiam A. Powell, 7 Politician, and Philanthropist (Lawrence: University May 1918; and Capper to S. M. Brewster, 7 Mav of Kansas Press, 1962), virtually ignores prohibition. 1918, "Prohibition," box 11, Capper Papers. 49. Julius P. McDonough to Arthur Capper, 1S 59. References to Kansas are found in the June 1915, "Prohibition," box 35, Capper Papers. Official Records of the National Commission on Lau' 50. W. V. Reinnecker to Arthur Capper, 20 Observance and En/orcement, 71st Congress, 3rd June 1915, Ibid. sess., 1931, D. Doc. 307, v. 1, 40-55, and v. 4, 51. J. E. Howard to Arthur Capper, 18 July 473-94. 1916, "Prohibition," box 9, Capper Papers. 60. H. A. Mendenhall to Arthur Capper, 7 July 52. S. M. Brewster to Arthur Capper, 21 July 1917; and Capper to Frederick D. Gardner, 13 July 1916, Ibid. 1917, "Prohibition," box Ll, Ibid. 53. S. M. Brewster to Ross McCormick, 21 July 61. H. W. Timmons to Frederick D. Gardner, 1916; and McCormick to Brewster, 22 July 1916, 20 December 1917; and T. C. Tadlock to Gardner, Ibid. 10 December 1917, Ibid. 54. A. B. Keller to Arthur Capper, 6 December