Part 18

Our Democratic opponents, however, challenge the right of the Republican party to a renewal of public confidence. And on what grounds? Read their platform, and you will see that the first and principal plank is a general and very bitter denunciation of “all sumptuary laws, State or National,” and an emphatic demand for a return to the license system. They are opposed, the platform declares, “to the principle of constitutional prohibition.” They regard it as an invasion of “the individual liberty and manhood of the citizen.” And they favor, “instead of constitutional or statutory prohibition, a well-regulated and just license system.”

The Republican platform, on the other hand, declares that “the people of Kansas have adopted prohibition as the settled policy of the State, and have declared that the saloon, with its corrupt and demoralizing influences, must go.” The Republicans are, therefore, the platform declares, “in favor of carrying out this verdict of the people, by enacting laws to enforce it, and by faithfully executing those laws, so that the sale of intoxicating liquors, except for the purposes specified in the Constitution, may be made impossible.”

On this question, as you will see, the two parties radically disagree. The Republicans take their stand fairly on the Constitution of the State—on the action of the sovereign people of the State, who by their votes have placed the liquor traffic and the saloon under the ban of their organic law. The Democrats denounce the Constitution and laws of the State, and favor a return to the license system.

Prohibition, it should be remembered, was not originally a party or partisan policy. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is responsible for the fact that the prohibition amendment to the Constitution was adopted. That was the act of the sovereign people of Kansas, acting in their individual capacity, without partisan or party indorsement or direction.

HISTORIC PARALLELS.

But in another sense, the Republican party is responsible for prohibition. It was always and is everywhere the party of law and good government. It stood for the constitution and laws during the dark and desolate days of 1861–5, and grew to manhood amid the perils and trials of a monstrous rebellion against a people’s government, and the people’s verdict that the aggressions of human slavery must cease. When the people of Kansas adopted the constitutional amendment of 1880, and decreed that the saloon, with its corrupt and demoralizing influences, must go, the Republican party accepted this decision, and a Republican Legislature enacted laws to enforce it. The Democratic party, from that day to this, has constantly and persistently endeavored to nullify the constitutional amendment and the people’s verdict against the saloon. History, it is said, repeats itself, and certainly the history of the Democratic refusal to accept the decision of the people of Kansas on the question of prohibition, and the Democratic refusal to accept the result of the election of 1860, afford striking parallels. In 1860 slavery crouched behind armed rebellion; in 1886 the saloon crouches behind Democratic nullification. The Republican party was the party of the Constitution and the laws in 1861; it is the party of the Constitution and the laws to-day. In 1861 the Democratic party advocated and defended that sum of all villainies, human slavery; it is to-day advocating and defending that fruitful source of vice, poverty, and crime, the liquor traffic. The Republican party was right in 1861; it is right now. In 1865 it made every man beneath the flag free and equal, and to-day it is striving to make every home in Kansas a happier home. It has loyally and honestly accepted the solemn duty devolved upon it by the people’s verdict against the sale of intoxicating liquors except for certain specified purposes, and it intends to enforce this verdict faithfully and firmly.

THE GROWTH OF KANSAS SINCE THE PROHIBITION LAW TOOK EFFECT.

Our opponents assert, however, that prohibition has damaged the material prosperity of the State.

Where are the evidences to establish this fact? What is the truth? The prohibition amendment was adopted in 1880, and the first law to enforce it went into effect in May, 1881. We have had, therefore, more than five years of actual experience, and I appeal to the facts of the census to answer the assertion that prohibition has done injury to the material interests of Kansas.

In 1880 the population of the State was 996,096. We had been twenty-five years in attaining that population. To-day Kansas has not less than 1,500,000 inhabitants. In five years we have gained half a million. In 1880 only 55 towns and cities had a population exceeding 1,000, and six had each over 5,000. In 1885, 91 towns and cities each had over 1,000, and twelve had each over 5,000. In 1880 we had only 8,868,884 acres under cultivation; in 1885 we had 14,252,815 acres. In 1880 the farms of Kansas were valued at only $235,178,936, and the farm products for that year aggregated only $84,521,486; in 1885 the farms of the State were valued at $408,073,454, and the farm products of that year aggregated $143,577,018. In 1880 the live stock of Kansas was worth only $61,563,950; in 1885 it was worth $117,881,699. In 1880 the assessed valuation of the property of Kansas, real, personal and railroad, aggregated $160,891,689; in 1885 it aggregated $248,845,276. In 1880 we had only 3,104 miles of railway; we have now 5,117 miles. In 1880 we had 5,315 school houses; in 1885 we had 6,673. In 1880 we expended $1,818,336 for the support of our common schools; in 1885 we expended $2,977,763. In 1880 we had only 357 newspapers and 2,514 churches; in 1885 we had 581 newspapers and 3,976 churches.

Do these figures prove the assertion of those “weeping Jeremiahs” who believed, or affected to believe, that the prosperity and growth of Kansas depended upon the saloons? Do they not, on the contrary, establish the fact that the growth of Kansas during the past six years—the six years of prohibition—has far exceeded any other period of the State’s marvelous development?

DOES PROHIBITION PROHIBIT?

Our opponents allege, again, that “prohibition does not prohibit;” that the saloons are simply transformed into drug stores, and keep on selling liquor as before; and that drinking and drunkenness have really increased since the prohibition law went into effect. If these assertions are true, what have they to complain of? If prohibition does not prohibit, why do the men who want to open saloons, and make a living by making their fellow-men drunk, oppose prohibition? If a saloon can be so easily transformed into a drug store, why don’t all the saloon-keepers adopt that course? If drinking and drunkenness have increased, why are those who profit by drinking and drunkenness, and all their allies and supporters, so bitterly opposed to prohibition?

The distress of the gentlemen who so vehemently argue that “prohibition does not prohibit,” recalls one of President Lincoln’s quaint stories. Gen. Grant was winning victories in the West, but his success inspired the usual jealousies and rivalries, and the President was frequently advised that Grant was a failure, and urged to remove him. This criticism and fault-finding continued even after the surrender of Vicksburg. The wiseacres insisted that Grant had made a fatal mistake in paroling Pemberton’s army, and argued that the paroled men would, in a brief time, swell the ranks of other Confederate armies. The President had been patient until then, but when this argument was made, he turned on the critics, and, with a sly twinkle, asked: “Did you ever hear about Bill Sykes’s yellow dog?” They said they hadn’t. “Well,” said Mr. Lincoln, “Sykes had a yellow dog he set great store by, but there was a lot of boys in town who didn’t share Sykes’s opinion. In fact, they regarded Sykes’s yellow dog as a nuisance. So they finally fixed up a cartridge with a long fuse, put the cartridge in a piece of meat, dropped the meat in the road near Sykes’s house, and then, having perched themselves on a fence near by, with the end of the fuse in their hands, whistled for the dog. When he came out he scented the meat, and bolted it, cartridge and all. The boys touched off the fuse, and in a moment there was an explosion. Sykes rushed out to see what was the matter, and found the ground covered with pieces of yellow dog. He picked up the biggest piece he could find, and after mournfully regarding it for a moment, sorrowfully said: ‘Well, I guess he’ll never be much account again—as a dog.’ And,” added the President, “I guess Pemberton’s army will never be of much account again—as an army.” Looking at the fragments of the whisky traffic scattered over the State, in jails, or seated on store-boxes swearing that “prohibition doesn’t prohibit,” or across the border in Missouri—looking at these scattered fragments, it may fairly be said that, like Sykes’s dog, the whisky business in Kansas will never be of much account again—as a business.

SALES OF LIQUOR BY DRUGGISTS.

It is unfortunate that the law does not require probate judges to make returns, to some State officer, of the sales of intoxicating liquor reported to them by the druggists of the State. In the absence of such returns accurate figures cannot of course be furnished. But it is possible to make up, from such official reports as are attainable, a reasonably accurate estimate of the liquor traffic in Kansas, and this I shall endeavor to do. In one of the oldest and most populous counties of this State—a county having nearly 25,000 inhabitants, and not a saloon within its borders—the official returns made to the probate judge, for the month of July last, show less than 1,500 sales. There are now ninety-three organized counties in the State. Seventy-nine of them have populations ranging from 2,500 to 25,000; and only fourteen have populations in excess of 25,000. In more than one-half of the counties of Kansas the sales of liquors by druggists will not reach 1,500 per month; in less than one-half the sales will probably exceed that number. Considering all the facts, however, it is fair to accept the official sales made in the county to which I have referred as an average for each other county. On this basis, with ninety-three counties, each averaging 1,500 sales per month, the aggregate for the entire State would be 139,500 sales per month, or 1,674,000 per year, or not much more than one sale per annum for each inhabitant.

It has been ascertained, also, by thoroughly competent and reliable investigation, that the sales of liquor by druggists do not average, in value, to exceed 40 cents for each sale. I will, however, make the estimate liberal, and call the money value of each sale 50 cents. And as the sales by druggists aggregate 1,674,000 per year, their pecuniary value, at 50 cents each, aggregates $837,200.

THE SALOON TRAFFIC IN LIQUORS.

Now, compare these figures with the saloon traffic in liquors. In this city, the capital of the State, there were, in January, 1885, seventy saloons. It has been ascertained, by the most careful and accurate investigation, that the expenses of saloons for rent, fuel, lights, city license, taxes, lawyers’ fees, help, liquors, etc., cannot average less than $20 per day. The expenses of some, of course, do not exceed $5 or $10 per day, but those of others reach $30 to $50 per day; so that $20 is a fair average. Hence, the seventy saloons open in Topeka until January, 1885, must have received an aggregate of $1,400 per day to cover their expenses, or, allowing 10 per cent. for profit, $1,540 per day. And as the saloon, where it exists, is open 365 days in the year, the seventy saloons of the city of Topeka, in order to meet their expenses and realize a profit of 10 per cent., must have received the enormous sum of $562,100 per annum. In other words, the 23,490 people of the city of Topeka then expended in the saloons more than two-thirds as much money for alcoholic liquors as all the people of the State of Kansas now expend in the drug stores for the same purpose.

Let me make the comparison still more plain. There were, in Topeka, seventy saloons, which would be one for every 335 of its then inhabitants. A like ratio for the State would give Kansas, with its 1,500,000 inhabitants, 4,477 saloons. The expenses of these, at $20 per day, and 10 per cent. profit, would aggregate the enormous sum of $35,950,310 per year. In other words, while the sales of liquor in Kansas by the druggists now aggregate only $837,200 per annum, if we had in Kansas as many saloons in proportion to population as had this city from 1881 to 1885, their sales, in order to meet their daily expenses, must aggregate $98,494 per day, or $35,950,310 per annum—$35,113,110 more than the sales by the druggists now aggregate.

A still more startling comparison is afforded by the statistics of the saloon business of Leavenworth. There are, it is reported, 230 saloons in that city, or one for every 127 of its 29,268 inhabitants. To meet the expenses of these saloons, estimating them at an average of only $15 per day each, requires receipts aggregating $3,450 per day, or $1,259,250 per annum—$422,250 more than is received by all the druggists of Kansas for all the liquors they sell. A like ratio for the whole State would give Kansas 11,811 saloons, whose daily expenses, at $15 per day, would aggregate the enormous sum of $177,165 per day, or $64,665,225 per year—just $63,828,225 more than the sales by the druggists now aggregate.

DEMOCRATIC SLANDERS OF HONORABLE MEN.

I want to add, too, that in my judgment, the assertions sometimes made, that the drug stores of Kansas have all been transformed into saloons, are absolutely false. I am acquainted with many of the druggists of this State, and know them to be honorable, law-respecting, conscientious citizens, who would not only scorn to do an illegal act for pecuniary profit, but who are far above and beyond the meanness of selling liquors as a beverage. There is no class of business men in the State who stand higher in the esteem and respect of all good citizens than do our druggists, and the attempt on the part of the Democratic party and its allies to degrade their business to the low level of the saloons, and to blacken and stain their reputation as honorable and law-respecting citizens, is unspeakably outrageous. It is true, no doubt, that there are men engaged in the drug business who disgrace it by violating the Constitution and laws, and who, for pecuniary profit, sell liquors for other than the excepted purposes of the Constitution. But these men are the exception, and not the rule, among the druggists of Kansas, and sooner or later the law will reach and punish them, and drive them out of the business they degrade. Those, however, who place druggists generally in this class, are either stupid or malicious slanderers of men who, as a class, are honorable citizens, engaged in a reputable and legitimate business. The sale of liquor for certain purposes is expressly authorized by the Constitution and the laws, and sales for these purposes are far larger than most people suppose. Alcohol is sold for hundreds of mechanical and scientific uses, strictly within the permission of the Constitution, and all varieties of intoxicating liquors are prescribed by learned and reputable physicians, for medical use. The sales for these legitimate and lawful uses constitute, I have no doubt, a very large proportion of the sales made by the druggists of Kansas; so that the quantity of intoxicating liquors sold as a beverage is reduced to a very small amount, and this amount will grow smaller year after year.

THE SOBER, LAW-RESPECTING STATE.

My fellow-citizens, those who assert that the drug stores have been transformed into saloons, or that drinking and drunkenness have increased in Kansas, ought to know that they are not telling the truth. There is not an intelligent, observing man in Kansas who does not know that drinking and drunkenness have been enormously diminished in this State during the past five years. It is no doubt true that liquor is sold in many places, in violation of law. But no intelligent, truthful man, who knows what the condition of affairs was six or eight years ago, and is to-day, will deny that a great reform has already been accomplished. I have traveled over the State a great deal during the past two years. I have attended public meetings in a hundred different towns and cities—political meetings, soldiers’ reunions, fairs and other gatherings, at which from 3,000 to 50,000 people were assembled—and it is one of the rarest of things to see a single person under the influence of liquor. I have heard hundreds of people speak of this remarkable fact, and always with satisfaction and pride. Wherever the saloon has been banished, nineteen-twentieths of all the drinking and drunkenness prevailing have been abolished with it. The social feature of the drinking habit goes with the saloon, and this social feature—the American habit of treating—is responsible for nine-tenths of all the drinking and drunkenness in America. The loafing-place the saloon afforded, with its crowd of hangers-on, has gone with the saloon. The bad example set before young boys, the allurements of good-fellowship which tempted so many, the appetite developed and nurtured by treating—all these have gone with the saloon. And yet, not to-day, nor next year, nor for a decade to come, will all the good results of this abolition of the saloon be realized. The old generation of drinkers will, many of them, probably continue to get liquor in some way—but their boys, our boys, all the happy, hopeful, bright-eyed and rosy-cheeked young fellows who are growing up on the prairies of Kansas, will grow to manhood untempted by the social allurements of the saloon, soberer, healthier, happier men than their fathers were.

FATHERS, MOTHERS, WIVES, AND CHILDREN REJOICE.

And where is the father who does not rejoice over this prospect? The man does not live who is so degraded, so brutal, that he would wish his boy, or the husband of his daughter, to acquire the drinking habit. Where, then, is the man who is not willing to give his voice and his vote to sustain the party which, respecting and obeying the formally expressed will of the people, proposes to abolish the saloon, and the frightful crime, poverty, wretchedness and vice of which it is the fruitful source? Suppose that not another drop of liquor should ever be sold as a beverage in Kansas, would any human being in the State thereby suffer harm? If every saloon in Kansas should be closed to-morrow, and never reopened, would any man, woman or child within the limits of the State be injured? Has whisky, since the first drop was distilled, ever benefited any man who drank it, or made the life of any wife, mother or sister any happier, or brought joy to the heart or smiles to the lips of a little child? Has any good ever come out of the saloon? Has any human being been hurt or harmed, in any town or city of this State, by the closing of the saloons? Not one—not a single one. In hundreds of Kansas towns whence the saloons have been banished, there are thousands of homes where wives and children wear better clothes, and sit down every day to better meals, than they had provided for them before the saloons were banished. Is there a home anywhere in the State that is less peaceful, prosperous and happy, or a child that is clothed in rags, or a wife whose love and happiness have been blighted, because the saloons have been closed? Not one—not a single one.

THE SALOON, THE SCHOOL HOUSE AND RECRUITING STATION OF THE ANARCHISTS.

Another, and if possible, more urgent reason why the saloon must go, has recently been brought home to the people of this country with convincing force. Americans have believed that this was the freest, happiest land under the sun, and it is. Its government is the perfection of human wisdom. It is, as the greatest of our Presidents has said, “a government of the people, for the people, by the people.” No limitations or restrictions are placed on the rights or liberty of any citizen, except such as are necessary to protect the rights and liberty of all other citizens. The humblest man in the land may aspire to the highest official place, and it is a fact that a vast majority of those citizens who have attained the loftiest honors sprang from the humblest walks in life. Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, Blaine, Logan, and thousands of others who might be named, are conspicuous illustrations of this truth. Ours is a government of liberty, regulated by law. Its delegated and reserved powers embody the ripest fruits of man’s experience with and knowledge of man’s weakness and strength, selfishness and generosity, cruelty and justice—embody, in fact, the experience of thirty centuries of human progress. Only a few brief years ago, the people gladly and proudly sacrificed 500,000 lives, and billions of treasure, in order to preserve, for themselves and their children, this heritage of free government.

But within the past decade there has been spawned upon our hospitable shores a school of depraved and vicious foreigners, who are poisoning and polluting the very atmosphere they breathe. Incapable of comprehending the difference between absolute despotism and republican freedom, confounding liberty with license, regarding all restraints of law as tyranny, and denouncing all government as oppression, these apostles of anarchy are sedulously sowing the seeds of discord, envy, hate, rapacity, and murder. And where do these miscreants find the most willing converts to their atrocious theories? Where do they assemble to plot, to declaim, to conspire, and to argue? Read the reports of the trial of the anarchists in Chicago, and you will ascertain. Read, in the journals of any of our large cities, reports of anarchist and socialist assemblies. Follow Most, and Schwab, and Spies, and Fielden, and Parsons, to their favorite haunts. Do this, and you will find that the saloon is always and everywhere the assembly room, the school house, the tabernacle of these wild, vicious and dangerous apostles of lawlessness. There they teach their ferocious doctrine, “burn, and murder, and plunder, in order to live.” There they find the ignorant and brutalized human beings whose besotted minds and deadened consciences make them ready converts to the monstrous theories that property is robbery, that law is oppression, that government is tyranny, that religion is a cheat, and that everything mankind has been taught to revere should be proscribed and destroyed.

THE CONFESSION OF AN ANARCHIST.

One of the most prominent men in this State told me, some months ago, of a conversation he had with a well-known New York socialist. The Kansas man said to the New Yorker: “You claim you desire to elevate humanity. You know, as every intelligent man does, that for a very large proportion of all the poverty, crime and woe of this world the liquor traffic is responsible. Why, then, don’t you endeavor to close the saloons of this city?” The reply was prompt and conclusive. Said the New Yorker: “Close the saloons? Why, if that was done we should have no meeting-places. We find and make most of our converts in the saloons!”