The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-11-21
WHAT STEPHENS FOUND
Facts About Enforcement of
PrOhibitory Law.

Some time ago Ewing Herbert, of
H1awatha, said in an interview in KAN
sas City that three-fourths of the cities
of Kansas are violating the prohibitory
law by licensing joints, and that the
repeating the law. This statement
called forth an investigation by T. E.
Stephens, ex-secretary of the State
Temperance union, to get some exact
tiers to three persons in each of the two
hundred largest towns in the state,
which took in all but six of the towns
having over 500 population. Two of the
letters were addressed to the city clerk
and city treasurer of each town, and
the third to some private individual. In
them Mr.. stephens said:
Much is said, pro and con, as to the
number of towns in Kansas which
openly or clandestinely license the sale
of Intoxicating liquors. The under
signed is DESTROYS of getting at the ex-
act facts in the case.
THE cities of Kansas may be divided
into four general classes with respect
to the enforcement of the prohibitory
law as follows:
4. Cities the known and avowed
policy OF which is to collect license
from the joints a means of revenue,
the license taking the name of a fine
and usually being collected once
month.
50. Cities in which the joints are
probably licensed by the officers, but in
a clandestine manner, the joints run
posed efforts OF the officers to close
them.
IS. Cities in which it is generally
known or believed there are joints, but
the proprietors of which do their bust
ness like thieves, avoiding the officers
and constantly fearing arrest.
a. Cities in which there are no joints
and but little and only occasional boot
Logging.
will you kindly indicate on the en-
closed addressed card to which of these
four classes you would judge your city
to belong? l desire exact facts. None
of the correspondence is to be given out
for publication, but only the general re-
suits of the investigation"
The total number of cities heard from
out of the 200 cities written to was 1872,
or 90 per cent of the entire number.
The total number of cities from which
replies were received from unofficial
sources was 1854; from official sources,
$50.
The total number where two or more
persons replied. out of the three per
sons written to in each town. was Us;
and in "a out of these 128 cases the an
swers exactly agreed.
In tabulating the replies the following
rules were observed:
% Where the majority of the replies
exactly agreed, the city was classified
accordingly.
(2) Where the replies disagreed, the
average was taken and the city placed
in that class most nearly corresponding
with the number obtained by averaging
the replies.
Thus proceeding, the following CLASH
fication was obtained:
Number of cities in class 1.......... %
Number of cities in class 2---....--- So
Number of cities in class 3. %
Number of cities in class 4--...-..-. 81
From these replies Mr.. Stephens fig
ures that only 10 per cent are openly
defying the law, while in only 25 per
cent is the law persistently violated.
while in the other rs per cent it is rea-
sonably or absolutely enforced. These
figures are exactly the reverse of the
statement made by Mr.. Herbert in his
interview.
Mr.. Stephens says that while there
are a few cities which license the liquor
traffic the same as it is licensed in 9TH
er states, yet the conditions even in
them is much better than in the aver
age city in the average license
state.
He also nNakes comparison with fig
ures gathered by DR.. ]. C. Dougherty
along the same line three years ago, at
which time SO per cent of IA towns
investigated were licensing joints or
permitting them to run, and only 81
per cent were enforcing the law.