THE Hisrœy OF THE ANTI-SALOON LBÜGUE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University Qy NORMAN HARDING DŒffl, B.A., A.M. The Ohio State University 1959 %proved by m ser Department of History PREFACE My first knowledge of the Anti-Saloon League came more than twenty years ago when I arrived in Westerville, Ohio, from western New York to attend Otterbein College. Although the League’s heyday had long since passed, the residents of Westerville still boasted of the fact— as they do today— that the town was once the capital of a move­ ment that proposed to change the living habits of the nation. There were still some reminders of the League’s activities. A skeleton staff was still on duty at League headquarters and the American Issue pub­ lishing plant was still operating on a limited scale. The most important link with the League’s past, however, was Howard ifyde Russell, the founder of the movement, who lived across the street from the main college campus and who frequently stopped to chat ifith students. Once each year. Dr. Russell addressed the student body at a chapel service. Although nearly ninety years old at the time, and a pathetic figure in many respects as he reveled in the glory he had once experienced, he exhibited flashes of his one-time oratorical greatness and his zeal as a temperance reformer. There were also other League personalities, including Dr. Ernest H. Cherrington, tdio contin­ ued their residence in Westerville. I became fascinated with the League and the inçjact it had on the social history of the nation while still a student at Otterbein. I was ii iii surprised to learn, however, that few atteriç)ts had been made to examine the history of the Anti-Saloon League and its personalities. With the exception of the League's own publications, scattered magazine arti­ cles, and brief references to the League in standard social histories of the United States, I found that the League had been largely neg­ lected. The only major effort to chronicle the story of the League was made by Peter H. Odegard in 1928 when he published the monograph; Pressure Politics; The Story of the Anti-Saloon League. This, how­ ever, is less a history than it is a study of the League as a pressure agency in government. Why the League has been generally ignored is difficult to understand, especially in light of the influence it exerted on the history and politics of the nation over so long a period of time. It developed into one of the most influential and powerful extra-govern­ mental agencies the country has known. In developing the story of the League I have attempted to do so without bias. This has been difficult since I have had to rely heavily for my information on League sources and on individuals who at one time or another were enployed by the League. Responsibility for what follows, however, is entirely mine except where otherwise indicated. For access to primary source material on the League I am indebted to the late Ila Grindell, long-time employee of its Westerville iv headquarters, and to the Temperance Foundation idiich now has charge of the League library and records. Many persons have offered me encouragement and have shared their knowledge of the League with me. Above all, though, I am sure whatever merit this study has is due. In no small degree, to the inspiration, friendly counsel, and patient persistence of my wife. Westerville, Ohio W.H.D. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAjE I. BACieROUND AMD ORIGINS OF MTI-SALOON LEAGUE. 1 II. PHILOSOPHY OF ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE................ 36 III. ORGANIZATION AND COMPOSITION................... 63 IV. NATIONAL GROWTH............................... 86 V. A CHANGE IN COMMAND.......................... 108 VI. THE LEAGUE'S RELATIONS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. 131 VII. FUND-RAISING AND EXPEimiTURES.................. 157 VIII. THE MOVEMENT FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION........... 175 DC. ENACTMENT OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT.......... 202 X. AFTER VICTORY, WHAT?..........................232 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 269 AUTCBIQGRAPHY........................................ 277 CHAPTER I b a c k j Ro ü n d a n d o r i g i n s o f t h e a n t i -s a l o o n l e a g u e At the stroke of midnight on January 16, 1920, a new experiment was begun in the United States— an experiment which its advocates be­ lieved would be permanent but which actually lasted little more than thirteen years. For on that date national prohibition by constitutional amendment, the dream of thousands of devoted men and women, officially became effective. Although a world-wide depression, a global war, and subsequent international political unrest have intervened, the struggle for national prohibition and its ultimate results still rank as one of the noteifortly chapters of America’s history in the twentieth century. The American people, more than one hundred million strong, greeted the "dry era" with mixed emotions. Millions had been won over to the cause of prohibition by a new type of moral crusader, who had substituted the fanaticism of his nineteenth century predecessor for hard-headed business sense and political acumen. These millions, thoroughly indoctrinated with the alleged virtues of prohibition. Joyously hailed the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act. There were millions of others, however, although many of them were in synçathy with a moderate approach to the use of alcohol and had supported earlier tenperance movements, who felt that prohibition was much too drastic. They believed that to write such a provision 1 into the Constitution was to deprive the citizen of his personal liberties. The wets, or at any rate the drinking segment of the population, also siqiported this contention, yet they appeared to have no doubt whatever that prohibition would prohibit. For weeks and even months before prohibition became a law, they stashed away stocks of their favorite brands of liquor in anticipation of the great drought. Others sought advice from brewers and distillers as to how they could manufacture their own refreshments. As for members of the liquor and brewery industry, they accepted their fate with little comment, seeming to realize they had been defeated, at least temporarily, by a superior force. Many changed over to other types of business, while a few of the more daring ones took their operations under ground and continued to produce and dis­ pense their product illegally. The size of this group increased as enforcement of the prohibition law broke down. Everybody expected that on the night of January 16, 1920, saloons, cafes, cabarets, restaurants, and hotels all over the country would be crowded with persons having a last fling before prohibition settled over the nation. Newspaper reports, however, describe the last fling as "very tame." Even in such notoriously wet cities as New York, Chicago, Detroit, Louisville, Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, little excitement was reported. A few hotels in New York draped their tables in black table cloths in deference to the drooping spirits of Broadway, but no special ceremony marked the passing of the old order. Entranced by the shining vision of an America forever free from the liquor traffic. the Anti-Saloon League of New York enthusiastically announced that "a new nation will be born," and wished every man, woman, and child a "Happy New Year.William H. Anderson, superintendent of the New York league and an important figure in the councils of the drys, sternly admonished the wets to be good sports and take their medicine» "Shake 2 hands with Uncle Sam," he said, "and board his water wagon." In Washington, B.C., temperance reformers from all parts of the United States, in the capital to attend the meetings of tdie National Temperance Council and the National Legislative Conference, attended a watch-night service and cheered a rousing oration by William Jennings Bryan, His audience included such notables as Wayne B, Wheeler, legislative superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, Bishop James Cannon, Jr., Jos^hus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy; Clarence True Wilson, of the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals; Representative Andrew J, Volstead of Minnesota, author of the Volstead Act; and Senator Morris Shepard of Texas, author of the Eighteenth Amendment.^ In Norfolk, Virginia, Evangelist Billy Sunday preached the funeral service of John Barl^com. The deceased arrived in a coffin twenty feet in length, brought to the doors of the tabernacle by a span of horses and trailed by a dejected Devil, "Good-bye, John," ^New York Times, Jan. 17, 1920. ^Ibid. Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1920. cried Mr« Sunday, "you were God’s worst enemy. You were Hell’s best friend. I hate you with a perfect hatred.In thousands of Protestant churches throughout the country, and in every town which had a chapter of the Women’s Christian Tenperance Union, the drys greeted the coming of the great day with thanksgiving and watch-night services, at which the Lord was publicly praised for His share in the victory. * * * * The story of prohibition in this country is lengthy and detailed, dating back to colonial times when the "good creature of God," as liquor was called in some of the early laws, was considered by many a prime necessity, almost an indispensable part of everyday c living* Liquor was a common article of diet, in many places almost as much so as bread, while even physicians looked upon it as a preventive of nearly all diseases and a specific for many. Nearly everyone drank, including both sexes and nearly all ages.