Search America's historic newspaper pages from 1756-1963 or use the U.S. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. Chronicling America is sponsored jointly by the National Endowment for the Humanities external link and the Library of Congress. Learn more
Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL
Newspaper Page Text
SALOON ANARCHY “Justice” Court in New York Sets Free Gin •\ Miller Who Assails Officer Delanson, N. Y., Nov. 27.—(Special correspon dence.)—Readers of Prohibition papers will re call the recent account of the assault upon the Rev. Wm. W. Iliffe, Presbyterian pastor at Duanesburg, on election day, by a mob of heelers of the saloon, disappointed because of a defeat largely brought about by the heroic activity of that splendid representative of Christian manliness, in the recent local option contest. There was also a hint that a deputy sheriff had been brutally assaulted by a hotel liquor seller on the same day. The facts in regard to this second outrage, so far as they could be ascertained, are substantially as follows. Both free whisky and money were being lav ishly used by outside representatives of the brew ing and distilling interests to influence voters at Duanesburg. This was being done in a barn near the polls. Deputy Sheriff Hotaling, a Prohibi tionist, becoming aware of this, raided the barn, arrested two men caught in the act, and siezed a bottle of whisky as evidence. While Hotaling was on his way to Delanson by train, a hotel keeper named Mackey, an ex-pugilist, was informed by phone of his coming, and of what had occurred. Probably with a view to destroying the whisky as evidence, not knowing that it had already been given into the keeping of the Rev. Mr. Uiffe, Mackey met Hotaling when the train arrived. With profanity and vile language he demanded Hota ling’s right to arrest men and accused him of being drunk and having a bottle of whisky in his posses sion. He then demanded to see Hotaling’s badge, and when Hotaling showed his badge as deputy sheriff, Mackey twice attempted to tear it off his coat. Then Hotaling laid his hand on Mackey’s shoulder, placed him under arrest, and Mackey ' \bfrrrfally assaulted the officer, so cutting open his ^tae that he had to undergo surgical treatment. The case—a jury’s trial—was tried in the local justice’s court, at Quaker street, last week. It attracted wide attention, and there was a large number of interested spectators. A special representative of The National Pro hibitionist was present. In his estimation the re sult could not be characterized as a miscarriage of justice, but an abortion—for the former conveys the idea of being accidental. Among the wit nesses for the defense were a traveling salesman for a wholesale liquor firm, an ex-bartender and a hostler of Mackey’s and some other hangers-on and dependents of his. “Everything went.” It is only just to say that the justice ruled fairly, but the jury brought in a verdict of “not guilty.” Mackey was evidently a trifle uncertain as to the result at first, for though the people were rep resented by only one lawyer, Mackey had re tained two to defend him; and one of them the Democratic assemblyman and ablest lawyer of Schoharie county. But this temporary victory of the liquor people was dearly bought in this case. For the verdict rendered has disgusted decent men far and wide, and has made, and will continue to make, not only no-license sentiment but Prohibition party votes. The first conviction under the Oklahoma Pro hibition law occurred Wednesday morning, No vember 20. A boot-legger named Smith, pleaded guilty to the charge of illegal liquor selling in the county court in Oklahoma City, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and serve thirty }s in the county jail. Does it pay to call ministers to preach the gos pel of love, charity, honesty, purity, forgiveness and redemption, and license other men to engage in a traffic which fosters hate, engenders strife, breeds dishonesty, impurity and destruction?— Scanlon. WHERE HASKELL STANDS Governor of Oklahoma Declares that He Will Enforce the Prohibition Law. Oklahoma City, Okla., Nov. 28.— (Special cor respondence.)—Governor Haskell, the new gov ernor of the new state, speaking before a great audience of nearly four thousand people in this city on Monday night, placed himself on record as determined to enforce the prohibitory law to the very letter and with every energy and all the power at his command. In part he said: “The people of Oklahoma knew what Charles N. Haskell stood for when he made his cam paign, and, if they elected him and secured state wide Prohibition when they didn’t want it, that’s their fault. “Prohibition is argued as being an infringe ment on personal liberties. Is there a single law in the broad length of our land that would permit any man to commit suicide? If the kisses of the wife and the clinging embraces of your babies are to be conducive to happiness, then begin there in your search for pleasure. Is the promo tion of such pleasures as that an infringement on personal liberties? “They say, ‘Oh, don’t destroy the progress and prosperity of our town.’ Not for a minute does the existence of a saloon affect the substantial prosperity of any town. “You said in your Constitution that the gov ernor shall be charged in his oath to enforce its provisions, and, by the heavens eternal, you’ve elected one who will see that they are enforced.” The occasion was a celebration of the admis sion of the state to the Union and the adoption of the prohibitory clause of the Constitution. Beside Governor Haskell, several local officials spoke, and also Mrs. Kate Patterson, represent ing the W. C. T. U., and the Rev. E. C. Din widdie, superintendent of the state Anti-Saloon League. A considerable sum of money was raised to push the work of enforcing the pro hibitory law. THE SALOON AND SOAP-SUDS A Study of the Problem of the Poor Man’s Home in Competition With Gin Mill Attractions. [From an Unidentified Editorial.] In a report of a sermon that was preached in this city on Sunday, the reader is told that the clergyman in considering “The Foes of the Fam ily,” said: In the homes of the well-to-do and of the poor alike, we find, as always, the dormitory, the laun dry and the kitchen. The laboring man finds small comfort in the home, in which his nostrils are greeted by the smells of cooking and soap suds, and the temperance societies tell us its effect upon his life. The laundry and kitchen have no logical place in the home of either the rich or the poor. Not always does a brief abstract or a quotation give a perfect picture of the thought in the mind of a speaker. We do not doubt that the pastor feels as much concern for the moral and spiritual wel fare of the woman as the man, but the detached quotation makes him appear to consider the in fluence of odors of cooking and soap-suds on the man only. “The temperance societies tell us their effect upon his life.” But if these smells are really prejudicial to the man, how about the woman, compelled to put in whole days amid odors of coap-suds where the man noses them for minutes, and forced to cook as well as to absorb the aromas of the viands at close range? What do the temperance societies have to tell about effects upon her? Is she driven to the saloon, or does she remain at home with the kitchen smells and wait for the odors of stale beer, bad whisky and worse tobacco to be mixed with them by the lord and master when he returns late and unsteady? She usually waits at home. Her case, therefore, seems to one unbiased by consideration for the rights of a superior sex to be the sadder one, and to appeal the louder for “socialization” of the kitchen—the remedy proposed. If we are to so cialize the kitchen let it be done with the woman in mind no less than the man; even more than the man. We more than doubt whether the temperance societies are altogether right in blaming the smells of cooking and soap-suds for drinking habits of masculinity. We never came across a man who was driven to drink by the smell of cooking, ex cept a professional cook or two. Indeed, the smell of cooking is usually a sweet savor to the man returning from a day of toil. We can’t say how it is about soap-suds, but if a woman can stand their odors for a day, a man ought to be able to stand them for a shorter time, and if he is the sort of man worth considering by any organized or unorganized influence outside the Salvation Army, he will do so; and more than that, he will, if the right sort, remain to soothe and sustain his wife amid the smells, instead of rushing off to the saloon. The fact is, the man who goes to the saloon does so because he likes to go, and if he says that it is because of the smells of cooking and soap suds at home it is only an aggravation of his of fense. If we have sympathy and help to bestow it ought to be for the wife who remains at home with the smells, an example to all her sisters and a living reproach to poor excuses who masquerade in trousers as men. POOR OLD KANSAS By the Hon. C. W. Trickett, Assistant Attorney-General of Kansas. Your state [Illinois] is the garden state of the nation; you have a rich soil, you have abundant rains. Your state is naturally blessed by Provi dence. Out in Kansas one-half of our territory was formerly known as the Great American Desert. It is the home of the cyclone, the grass hopper, the drought and the green bug. We are only about one-half as old as your great state, but we have had no licensed saloons for twenty years and you have had high license. I say to you that today the people of poor old cyclone stricken Kansas have more money per capita on deposit in the banks than have the people of the great state of Illinois. It may be that some may resent my comparing Kansas with Illinois. If so, let me compare Maine with the great state of Ohio. Maine, they say, in 1855, when it adopted Prohibition, was the most drunken and poorest state in the nation. Ohio was a rich state. In fifty years of Prohibition Maine has organized and has today more banks and has $22,000,000 more on deposit in those banks than has the wide open state of Ohio with six times her population. Booze and bankruptcy go hand in hand! Let me bring you another statement from Kan sas. They sometimes make the statement that Prohibition does not prohibit in Kansas, that it doesn’t lessen drinking. I will read you a state ment made by the governor of the state of Kansas quite recently and published over his signature. Listen. “Of the 106 counties in Kansas only twenty-one have any paupers. Only twenty-five have poor houses. Thirty-five have their jails absolutely empty. Thirty-seven have no criminal cases pend ing upon the dockets of their courts.” Is there a county in Illinois that can make state ments similar to this last? Kansas has the small est number of paupers of all the states in the Union. Kansas spends more money for educa tion in proportion to population than any other state in the nation—poor old Prohibition Kansas 1 Listen. One hundred and five newspapers are published in Kansas, of which number only twenty will carry an advertisement for a liquor house. Poor old, Prohibition Kansas ! Does it pay to maintain a national quarantine against criminal and dependent classes from abroad and license 250,000 saloonkeepers to man ufacture such products at home?—Scanlon.