"Protecting the Public Welfare and Morals" Political Institutions, Federalism, and Prohibition, 1834-1934. Thesis by Reginald Roberts In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2001 Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for his mercy and faithfulness. Next, 1 would like to thank all of those who have supported me throughout my doctoral career. I w41 start in the following order: thesis support, candidacy support. graduate education support and general support. For thesis support, I first like to thank my comnlittee. Mike Alvarez, David Grether. Rod Kiewiet, and Peter Ordeshook. Special thanks goes to the Chair, Rod Kiewiet. for the tremendous energy spent making sure my thesis was coherent. clear and consistent. I then like to thank Bill Deverell, the special consultant to my thesis, for the guidance early on, that helped shape my focus. A special thanks goes to Nancy Brown and Ruth Sustiata for the incredible amount of effort they spent helping me find documents and data. Then I like to thank Ron Roberts Jr., for his expertise in communication, which played a big role in my oral defense delivery. I also like to thank Kathy Zeiter and Fred Boemke for taking special time out of their schedule to read parts of my thesis. For candidacy support, a special thanks goes to Scott Page and Simon Wiie for putting forth extra efforts to help me past the second part of my candidacy. A special thanks goes to Kim Border, who spent hours working with me to help me prepare to retake my prelinlinary exams. For graduate education support, a special thanks goes to the lrvine Foundation, Mike Alvarez and Scott Page for their commitment to diversity in graduate education. I also like to thank Matt Spitzer, and John Ledyard for making sure 1 had food and shelter during the summers. A special thanks goes to Danny Howard and John Carter for education and moral support. Lastly, I'd like to thank Bob Sherman and David Grether for their teaching, from which I benefited from tremendously. For general support, I would like to thank the Baldwin Hills Church Family, Ed Mc Cafferey, Tara Butterfield, Rosy Meiron, Ana Salazar, Patricio Vela, Victoria Nelson, Dion Tynes, Ron Roberts Jr., A1 Ayetin, Debbie Dismuke, Robert and Goldie Buchanan, Naomi Graham Amelia Roberts, Von Johnson, Esther Preston, and Juanita Roberts. Most of all, I'd like to thank my Parents, Alma Nelson, Doris Kirk and Laurel Auchambaugh. Abstract Social Scientists have developed a research agenda that seeks to explain prohibition policy adoption through the theory of collective action or the economic theory of regulation. They have found that the relative strength of interest groups has indeed played a role in the adoption of prohibition policy at the state and national level. I have chosen to take a diierent approach to the study of the prohibition era. In this thesis, 1 have chosen to make the state and federal constitutions the primary focus in determining what shaped prohibition policy outcomes at both the state and national levels. I have sought to show three things. First, state institutions played a key role in the spread of prohibition policy. Second, the state's ability to enforce prohibition was compromised by the conflict between state police powers and the federal interstate commerce powers. Third, the ambiguous wording of the Eighteenth Amendment was a major factor in the failure of national prohibition enforcement. In chapter 2, I showed that pro-prohibition forces preferred constitutional amendments to statutory laws. The ability to adopt state constitutional amendments, however, was hampered in some states by high institutional harriers at both the initiation stage and ratification stage. In chapter 3, I showed that prohibition states had limited success in prohibiting alcohol sales because their police powers conflicted with federal interstate commerce powers. In chapter 4, I show that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ambiguous wording of the Eighteenth Amendment gave states incentives to free ride on the federal enforcement effort. Consequently, the asymmetry in capabilities between the states and federal government was a chief cause in the failure of enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment. I conclude that prohibition policy might shed some light on the current direction of research on how policies, particularly moral policies, diffuse across states. Second. the federalism perspective I have adopted may shed some light on the likely life cycle of moral policies, the "war on drugs," that are tending toward prohibition today. V Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................. 11 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. 111 TABLEOF CONTENTS................................................................................................... V LISTOF TABLESAND ILLUSTRA~IONS....................................................................... ~lll CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 HISTORICALSTUDIES OF PROHIBITION:A BRIEF OVERVIEW .......................................... 2 IMPORTANTQUA~TATIVE STUDIES OF PROHIBITION................................................... 4 INFLUENCEOF POLITICALINSTITUTIONS PROHIB~TION POLICY OUTCOMES .................... 7 NOTES...................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER1 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 2 PROHIBITION FORCES AND STATE INSTITUTIONS ............15 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 15 AN ~NS~TUTIONALPERSPECTIVE ON STATEPROHIBITION ........................................... 16 THECHANGE OF STRATEGYTO CONSTITUTIONAMENDMENT ...................................... 23 CONSTITuTIONAL CAMPAIGNSOF THE 1880's ............................................................. 24 STATECONST~TUT~ONAL AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 28 Proposal Submissions 29 Ratification .......................................................................................................... 31 THEQUIETPERIOD OF 1890-1906............................................................................... 33 THEINITIATIVE AND REFERENDUMIN THE THIRDWAVE ............................................. 35 ASL STRATEGY.POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. AND POLICYOUTCOMES ........................... 36 EVENTI%ISTORY AND COMPETINGRISK ANALYSIS ...................................................... 40 DEPENDENTVARIABLE ............................................................................................... 45 INDEPENDENTVARIABLES .......................................................................................... 45 DURATION................................................................................................................. 45 Political Institutional Variables............................................................................. 46 Social and Demographic Variables........................................................................ 49 RESULTS.................................................................................................................... 50 Demographic and Socioeconomic Variable 51 SIMULATIONS........................................................................................................... 52 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 54 Data Sources ......................................................................................................... 66 Left Censoring and Other Data Issues ................................................................... 66 CHAPTER2 REFERENCES............................................................................................ 74 CHAPTER 3 STATE PROHIBITION AND FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS ..............79 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 79 THEORIGINAL PACKAGE DOCTRINE ........................................................................... 80 FEDERALCIVIL WAR TAX .......................................................................................... 82 THEFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DEFENSE ............................................................. 83 THEINTERSTATE COMMERCE CHALLENGE .................................................................. 85 THEWILSON ACT ....................................................................................................... 88 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................. 94 NOTES....................................................................................................................... 95 CHAPTER3 REFERENCES............................................................................................ 96 CHAPTER 4 NATIONAL PROHIBITION AND THE COLLAPSE OF CONCURRENT ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................... 97 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................