The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-07-11
ONE YEAR OF PROHIBITION.
The Result Of Twelve Months Trial Of
the Law in the State Of Iowa.
The Statute Dead Letter in All but the
Smaller Embarrassment Due
to the Loss of Revenue.
Letter in Chicago Tribune.

The 4th day of this month the iron clad pro.
hibitory liquor law had been in force, or rather
1t had been operative in scattered sections of the
State, for just one year How and where it has
prohibited the sale of liquor, and how and where
1T has not it is the purpose of this article 10
show. But it may be we'll to inform the reader
that the present law is not the only one which
has found resting place on the statute books of
the State. There was prohibtory law adopted
in 1855, and up to 1858 it included wine and
beer. In 1858 the German immigrants were
coming into Iowa in great numbers. They were
instinctively opposed to slavery, then the
prominent political issue, and inclined to join
the Republican party. But the Germans were
decidedly opposed to the prohibition of beer Ia
order to secure the vote of this great body of
adopted citizens to the Republican party, the
wine and beer clause was passed This remained
practically the law Of the State until the consti-
tutional amendment was submitted to popular
vote, and by act OF the General Assembly prohi-
btion pure and absolute, again became the
statute Since July 3, 1894, it has been VIOLA
ton OF law to buy or sell wine, beer ale and
the heaviest penalties were prescribed, even to
the confscation of property
year is believed to be long enough to test
the workings of the law, and for that purpose a
careful canvass of twenty eight of the leading
cities has been made. 1t is not denied that in
farming communities liquor is not sold but that
was practically the case before the present law
was enacted. But it is shown by indisputable
evidence that now and for year past free
whisky is the rule in nearly every center of pop
ulation The facts herein stated are furnished
i,,f III ,oE@ ~ AZ
cities named, and in the remaining one fifth by
either the city clerk, the city marshal or CORE
spondent of the Davenport Democrat Fairness
has been aimed at, the object being to gather a
correct account of the situation as it is.
The first question asked in letter sent to the
mayors of the leading cities of the State was:
lis the sale of liquor openly carried on2 OF
twenty eight who answered this question four
teen say that liquor is openly sold, and others
furnish the information that the traffic is not
open, but that it is known to be clandestinely
carried on. These cities, whose highest officials
say that liquor is publicly bought and sold, in
clude the most prominent ones in the State.
They are Sioux City, Clinton, Boone, DEBORAH,
heokuk, Lyons. Davenport, Burlington Masca
tine Ottumwa, Dubuque. Council Bluffs, Cedar
Rapids and Maquoketa. In the instances where
the saloons are closed the fact cannot always be
attributed 20 the new prohibitory law. Mayor
Eaton, OF Usage says I'VE have had no saloons
for nine years" Mayor Reno, of Iowa City:
Not openly; that is you cannot call for beer or
whisky and get it."
Where liquor is sold very little, if any, re-
straint seems to be exercised. This is shown by
the answers to the second question asked, which
was: How many saloons or places where liq-
uor is sold, are known or supposed to exist in
your city?' Sioux City answers so; Clinton So
Boone Is; DEBORAH, IS; Charlton, 6 supposed
to exist (Charton is omitted from the above list
of towns where the saloons Openly carried
on"1; Keokuk 81: Anamosa. l; Lyons Al: Iowa
City, s. Davenport $50; Burlington, 100; Musca
tine, 80; Ottumwa. ZIG; Dubuque 140 Council
Bluffs, 75 Cedar Rapids, so; Maquoleta, IA.
In the cities named the number of places
where liquor is sold has, in the aggregate, been
slightly reduced. But the saloons have been
closed in the smaller towns at the expense of
opening additional ones in the cities. This re-
suit is arrived at by the replies to the third i'm
terrogatory, which took this shape: How
many saloons were doing business year ago."
Sioux City answers 30, indicating that there has
been no change. In Clinton the number of
saloons has increased from 81, when wine and
beer could be legally sold, to so, when it is pro-
hibited by statutory enactment. In Boone the
increase has been from 10 to 16 in Keokuk, from
20 to 81 in Lyons, from 80 to Al; in Davenport
from $50 to $50; in Burlington, from 68 to l09
in Ottumwa, from % to ll6 in Council Bluffs
from 50 to Is; in Cedar Rapids from 40 TO So
In Muscatine there has been no change. and
this is true of Dubuque and DEBORAH. Where
regulation is most desirable on account of reve-
nue. there the evils of liquor selling are magni-
fed But this matter of revenue deserves to be
treated separately.
Up to the time when city councils could law
fully defray their police expenses with the rev
enue derived from saloon licenses there was
wide range in the amount fixed upon The high
est was 81, 900 end the lowest $75. This was
reached by the fourth question: What was Che
amount Of license, If any, required" There
were not more than half dozen towns of any size
in Iowa but levied license tax on the saloon
keepers. Sioux City made it $500 yearly Red
Oak, $500; Charles City $780, Clinton 5000;
Boone $500; Centerville, $500; Decorah $780,
Mason City. $500; Abba, $500; Charlton $500;
Keokuk, $500; Anamosa, 5000; Lyons, $75; Iowa
City, 1920; Davenport $780, Cedar Falls, 800;
Burlington, $500; Muscatine 800; Clarinda,
$500; Ottumwa, $1,000; Dubuque, 500; Man
chester. $500; Council Bluffs, $500; Cedar Rap
ids. $500; Maquoketa, $500
The question was asked, filthy: "How does
the number Of arrests for drunkenness during
the last year correspond with the number for the
same offense during the corresponding time pre-
viously9" Definite information was hard to OBJ
tain on this point, because in several instances
accurate records had not been kept Ten of tho
largest cities indicate that there has been no
perceptible difference in the number of cases of
intoxication which have come under the notice
of the station keeper during year of legal
license and the same period of prohibition The
answers run in this way: Red Oak, 'About
one TO five one year ago, and larger per
cent. have money to pay fnes;" Charles
City, about the same;' Clinton More;
Boone. Gully as many" Charlton ssI,ess in tha
ratio of l to 90" Keokuk mo material differ
ence;" Lyons. about the same;' Iowa City,
mo perceptible differences" Cedar Falls, Have
not the official record at hand, but there was
decrease in number Burlington, about the
same" Usage, More than during the previous
year Muscatine, About the same, perhaps
more" Winterset 81 would say not half as much
drunkenness" Ottumwa, about the same;" Du-
budue, mo difference in this respect" Council
Bluffs, "a small increase" These answers show
the tenor of all.
The sixth, question was: "Do you issue any
license for the sale of legal drinksl" To the
general reader this may seem a SUPER
iuous inquiry, but it pertains to the most
perpleXng problem with which the
municipal bodies of Iowa have had to
do Their expenses have not been materially
reduced by ore prohibltory law, while one great
source of revenue has been cut off This city