Clinton County, Indiana - Chapter 12: The Liquor Question, 1913

Chapter 12: The Liquor Question

In the early period of its settlement Clinton was much like the rest of the United States in regard to the use of intoxicating liquors. Practically everybody drank, even the preachers ; and anyone who drank was liable to "take a little too much" at some time. It was an indication of hospitality to keep liquor on the sideboard for guests, and the early laws almost required a tavern to keep a bar in order to comply with requirements for furnishing "entertainment for man and beast." In most of the churches there were some licensed preachers who were also licensed tavern -keepers, and who kept bars as a matter of course. There were a number of distilleries in Clinton county, where the home made article was sold or exchanged at very low rates.

It is not generally believed that the effects of liquor were so disastrous in those days as later. This is probably true, not because the liquor was "purer." as is often claimed, but because most of the drinkers were engaged in hard labor, or subject to exposure : and furthermore had not ordinarily as free access to drink. There is a vast difference between a moderate amount of liquor taken as a stimulant by a person who has some occasion for a stimulant, and large quantities of liquor imbibed by one who is under no physical strain. As the country became more settled and conditions of leisure and easy access to liquor developed, drunkenness increased until it startled the thoughtful.

The first temperance movements were purely voluntary efforts in restraint of the drinking habit and these quickly gave way to the total abstinence movement which developed the "Washingtonian" organizations. Following this came the organization of the Sons of Temperance, which took up the battle for restrictive legislation. The first Indiana lodge of this body, "Indiana Division No. i," was organized at Brookville, November 15, 1845, and authorized to grant charters in Indiana on January 15, 1846. By April

24th nine others lodges had been organized, at Richmond, Centreville, New Albany, Logans Cross Roads (Dearborn county), Dublin, Connersville, Madison, Jeffersonville and Indianapolis. On March 2nd a charter was granted for the Grand Division of Indiana, and on May 2d it was organized.

The first charter to Clinton county was issued to "Clinton Division. No. 73/' Frankfort, on April 21. 1847. ft is interesting to note that at the same meeting the Grand Division decided that it was improper to initiate colored persons, or grant charters to colored persons to form divisions. This was the only division in the county for some months, and it was united for subordinate government with Thorntown Division No. 140, under Grand Worthy Patriarch Cyrus B. Pence. Clinton Division had twenty-two members when the Grand Division was incorporated by act of the legislature, on January 21, 1848.

In 1849 t'ie work of organization was pushed more vigorously, under the guidance of State Lecturer Benjamin T. Kavanaugh and three more divisions were organized in Clinton county. "Pharos, No. 258," at Rossville; "Michigantown. No. 268." at Michigantown, and "Morning Star, No. 288" at Jefferson. There were united with Clinton as "District No. 65" under District Grand Worthy Patriarch Wm. J. McFarland. No other divisions were organized in the county up to March 31, 1S51. at which time the organization has over ten thousand members in the state. In 1848 the Sons of Temperance began petitioning the legislature for restriction of the traffic, and limiting license to persons who produced a petition for it from a majority of the heads of families and voters of the corporation. The legislature of 1851-2 passed a rather stringent law, but made its taking effect dependent on a vote of the people, which the Supreme court held to be unconstitutional (Maize vs. State, 4 Ind. 342). At the same time that this decision was announced (October, 1853), the temperance people of the state held a convention at Madison, and declared flat-footed for prohibition. They also appointed committees for organization and adjourned to meet at Indianapolis on the second Wednesday in January. 1854. This action set the state on fire, especially the resolutions adopted at Indianapolis which forced an issue that was very definite on the three following sections :

Resolved, That no prohibitory law will satisfy the temperance sentiment of this state which does not contain the principles of seizure, confiscation and destruction of liquors kept for illegal sale.

Resolved, That the principles for which we contend are and have been recognized by all civilized governments, as well as by the divine government.

Resolved, That attached as we are to our respective political parties, we have no disposition to interfere with their ogranization ; but, we distinctly declare that we will not vote for any candidate for the legislature, of any party, who is not fully committed in favor of the principles avowed in the two preceding resolutions.

Clinton county got into the fight promptly. The Crescent indorsed the movement editorially and warmly. A meeting was held at the Methodist church in Frankfort on January Qth to elect delegates to the convention at Indianapolis, and well attended. N. T. Catterlin was called to the chair, and J. Gamble, then editor of the Crescent, was made secretary. A committee reported the following for delegates : Rev. Thos. Bartlett, Rev. f. D. Glenn,

W. Seawright, James Gaster, Edward Winship, John Gamble, A. G. Ramsey, Rev. J. P. Wright, Rev. YV. Clusky, Rev. M. Ball. A. Baker, Dr. J. M. Clark, Burr Braden, A. St. C. Stall, Rev. Mr. Cox. Edward Reed and George Salmon. They were elected and then a resolution was adopted that all other citizens of Clinton county who attended should be considered delegates. The meeting adopted strong resolutions, the more significant of which w-ere these :

"4. That as a temperance people we will contribute our influence to the selection of a legislature unequivocally pledged to the "Maine Law" or its equivalent."

There was a decided difference of opinion in the county which came chiefly on the question of "search, seizure and confiscation," which some held to be an invasion of personal rights. The temperance people went to work on non-partisan lines. At a meeting at the Methodist church on July 10th, J. S. White delivered an address favoring prohibition, following -which was a call for pledges to support only prohibition candidates. This brought on a discussion which lasted so late that the meeting adjourned for a week, to meet at the court house. This meeting was devoted to debate, in which N. T. Catterlin. Revs. Hill and Bartlett, R. P. Davidson, J. X. Sims and C. J. Miller took part. On September 12th. a mass meeting was held at Frankfort. and H. W.. Ellsworth, who wras canvassing the state for prohibition spoke at 1 p. m.

At the election, on October 10th, James W. Wilson, who favored temperance but opposed "search, seizure and confiscation," received 1.086 votes for representative to his opponent's 908. He was the Whig candidate and the

Democratic platform declared against "search, seizure and confiscation." T. F. Suit, the Whig- candidate for the senate, carried the county by 1,112 to 878 for Col. John Q. A. Perrin, of Ross township, though the Crescent accused him of ''having a cold," and not declaring himself on the liquor question. The Delphi Times claimed that Suit gave positive pledges that he would not vote for "search, seizure and confiscation." When the bill came on for passage. Suit voted for it. and Wilson against it: and both defended their positions. The temperance people held a meeting at Frankfort and indorsed Suit's action on March 3rd.

The law was somewhat on the principle of the South Carolina dispensary law. It authorized the county commissioners to appoint "agents" of the county, for terms of one year, to sell "pure and unadulterated spirituous and vinous and intoxicating liquors" for "medicinal, cehmical and mechanical uses only, and pure wine for sacramental use." Sale by others was prohibited and purchase of other than agents was a penal offense. The county furnished the money for the purchases by the agents, and received the proceeds, less expenses.

The county commissioners began business on June 6, 1855, by appointing Benjamin B. Jeffries agent for the sale of spirituous liquors at Frankfort for one year, "for the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars per year, including all his services connected with such agency." T. A. Johnson and W. G. Harbaugh were his bondsmen. There is no record of an allowance for the purchase of liquors for the agency, but Jeffries got a supply and opened the agency on June 20th on the west side of the public square rented of Wilson Seawright. The law went into effect on June 12th and was hailed with demonstrations in various parts of the state. Lafayette celebrated by a big procession, mass-meeting and speeches: and incidentally fined a man fifty dollars on the 13th for selling in violation of law. In Clinton county the Sons of Temperance celebrated at Kirklin on July 4, with an old fashioned Sunday school parade headed by the Frankfort Saxe Horn Band, and a patriotic temperance address bv Rev. J. D. Glenn.

regard the appointment as one of the best that could have been made. Mr. Jeffries is a sterling man and will do as much towards carrying out the provisions of the law, according to the spirit, as any person in the county. Mr. Jeffries is the only agent appointed in the county, as no other township made application to the commissioners for an agent." ply of pure liquors, which have been received at this point and are now ready for distribution, in cases of necessity. We have not seen a man in town the least 'fuddled' since the new law took effect: and firmly believe it will accomplish the great end for which it was designed - the suppresion of drunkenness. If this great end is attained, each of us ma\ well relinquish a portion of our absolute rights, in view of accomplishing so great a general good."

The law was enforced with a vengeance. At the July session of the common pleas court, Dr. I. T. Wilds was fined twenty dollars and costs for selling a bottle of Scheidam Schnapps - an article called a "patent medicine" which sold at fifty cents a bottle, and was quite popular. Xo other violations were recorded. The out townships awoke to the situation and called for relief: and on August it. a called session of the Board of Commissioners was held, and the following agents appointed: Joshua K. Harlin for Tohnson township: Jacob C. Rodkey for Warren township: D. T. Shirlev and Edward A. Armstrong for Honey Creek township: and Wm. Strainge for Michigan township. Abraham Eichhold was appointed agent to purchase pure and unadulterated liquors "in Cincinnati. Philadelphia or New York for the agents of the county." at the same session.

These were all the agents appointed in the county except that on September 3. James M. Scotten was appointed for Washington township and it was about that time that the other agents were supplied by Eichhold. On August 18, the Crescent explained that the called meeting to appoint agents on the nth was to relieve the inconvenience of "compelling the citizens of the more remote townships to come to the county seat for every particle of spirits required by them during the sickly season" : and that the liquor ordered by Eichhold would "probably reach this place by the last of next week." It added this :

"The sales of spirituous liquors at this place up to the present time, which has not been quite two months, we are informed by the agent amounts to two hundred and seventy-five dollars. This is quite a moderate use of the ardent when we take into consideration that there has been but one agency in the county." This was less than five dollars a day for the whole county, but even that leaves some doubt that the liquor was used solely for "medicinal, chemical and mechanical purposes." The doubt is made very strong by a statement of the Crescent on September 8 of the Frankfort agency's business, as follows :

"The number of sales at this point up to the present time is fourteen hundred. We are informed by the agent that the original cost of the liquor thus disposed of is five hundred dollars, which if sold according to the provision of the statute, at twenty-five per cent, advance, would be one hundred and twenty-five dollars profit - nearly enough, in a little over two months, to pay the expenses of a year's sales." This called forth a communication from "Owen" on September 15, who asked, "What would have been the probable amount had our agent done his duty and kept a supply on hand all the time, instead of being out at least one-fourth of the time, and that in the season when there was the greatest demand." after the appointment of Mr. Jeffries he brought on what he supposed would lie enough to supply the community for some time. Being unacquainted with a business of this kind, he had but little idea of what the demand would be. Before his first supply had run down, the case of Bebee was taken to the Supreme court to test the constitutionality of the law. There was a possibility, and. indeed, a probability that the law would be pronounced unconstitutional. For several weeks a decision from the Supreme court was looked for, when finally it was ascertained that a decision would not be given until some time in the future. All these things had a tendency to produce some disorder and delay: but as soon as possible after an understanding of these things wras had, our agent made arrangements for a good assortment of liquors - has them now on hand, and will continue no doubt to keep them hereafter in abundance.

"We think our correspondent mistaken if he supposes that the agency was w ithout liquor one-fourth of the time. There may not have been an assortment, but there was but verv little time when some kind of liquors could not lie had : and while our agency was supplying pretty generally, other counties were entirely destitute, for the same causes. Give our agents time to 'get the hang of the barn,' friends, and then things will go on smoothly."

But the system -was not destined to go on. The Bebee case reached a decision on December 20, 1855 f6 Tnd. 501), and the law was held unconstitutional by a divided court. The decision was accepted as final, and there was nothing further to be done but close up the agency business. On March 3, 1856, the commissioners recorded : "Now at this time the board proceeded to measure the liquors on hand, and to deliver the same to W. P. Dunn for sale, and found the liquors to amount to $558.88, to which is added $61.47, making $620.35, also two dollars for faucets and measures." Mr. Dunn worked at the remnant for a year, and when the board settled with him, on

March 4, 1857, it found that "he has sold of said liquors to the amount of $405.38 and of kegs to the amount of $6, and of faucets to the amount of $2.

There is no explanation of the extra dollar and a half in the total. On June 2, Douglass and Cornelison receipted for the balance of the stock, "to take and sell and account to them at the price set in the bill" as follows :

And therewith the county went out of the saloon business, except in the capacity of licenser. The result was somewhat discouraging to the temperance people but they rallied quickly and began a fight for a prohibition amendment to the constitution, which might haver succeeded but for the coming on of the civil war. which absorbed public attention to the exclusion of everything else. The liquor people were of course jubilant, and, as is quite natural in such cases, became somewhat reckless. One case of that kind was a man named Harper, who had a saloon in a one-story frame building at the northwest corner of the square, where the Clinton County Bank is now located, in 1857-8. He was believed to be contributing unduly to lawlessness in the community, and one evening a crowd assembled for corrective purposes. They took a pole from the hitch-rail around the courthouse and with it wrecked the front of Harper's place, door and windows, and then demolished his stock, making a bonfire of the combustible remnants.

Through the war period, and the reconstruction period following, the liquor traffic grew7 and thrived, and the temperance sentiment seemed almost extinguished, but it was only smoldering, as it was all through the country, to break out once more in a fierce blaze. It came with the bitter cry of the women of the country, women w'ho were roused by the ruin of sons and brothers. The woman's crusade originated late in 1873, and was given a special impetus in Indiana by the Baxter liquor law of that year. The Baxter law was a very reasonable measure of regulation, but allowed licenses, or permits, only on petition of a majority of the voters for a special applicant. The primary object of the woman's crusade was to persuade people not to sign petitions, but it soon extended in most places to public prayermeetings and watching saloons. The movement was launched at Indianapolis on February 29, 1874 by temperance meetings in the churches, and was soon going all through the state. On March 6th the following appeared in the Indianapolis Journal.

"Frankfort, Ind,, March 5. - The people of this city are fully aroused in behalf of the new temperance movement, additional impetus having been given to that feeling by a visit from Hon. William Baxter, who lectured here Tuesday and Wednesday nights. The pressure against the saloons is very heavy and it is thought they will all succumb. Six suits for damages are now pending against them. The commissioners have just granted three additional permits, against remonstrances of the temperance people who will appeal to a higher court."

The Draypin Riot

One of the permits was for a new saloon for which a stock of liquors had been ordered from Indianapolis. It is said that several business men in Frankfort were interested as stockholders in the proposed saloon, but the responsibility was assumed by Wm. Langstaff, to whom the license was issued. The temperance people were holding an indignation meeting at the Presbyterian church, over the issuing of the permits, when word came that the liquor had arrived and was about to be delivered. The meeting adjourned to assist in the delivery, and in a very short time a large crowd had gathered in front of the room where the saloon was to be located, on the west side of the square.

When the liquor arrived the temperance people said it should not be unloaded and prevented it. except that one barrel of whisky was put into the room. For a while there was a good prospect for trouble, but the resistance was determined, and apparently growing, and the disturbance was finally ended by the liquor being hauled back to the depot, for the time being. During the progress of the affair a mysterious event occurred. Miss Mattie (IS)

Shortle (now Mrs. Sheffler), a teacher in the Frankfort schools, found herself alone in the saloon room, with the barrel of whisky, and a hatchet that was lying on the floor. In some way the bung got knocked out of the barrel, and the whisky went after it. After the outbreak, suit was brought against David F. Allen, Henry Zaring and I. N. Davis, who had been active on the temperance side, for the damages that had been done and judgment was recovered against them. The women then took up a collection and paid the judgment.

That there was a possibility of serious disturbance about this time may be inferred from the fact that a printed circular was widely distributed, bearing the following in large type : '"PROCLAMATION. No person will be permitted to sell intoxicating liquors, by the glass, pint, quart, gallon or barrel, in the town of Frankfort. We are organized, armed and equipped. 'Forewarned is to be forearmed.- By order of the Vigilance Committee. Frankfort, Ind., April 15, 1874."

There were a few cases of men going out of the saloon business on account of the crusade: but in general there was more prevarication than reformation on their part, and they resumed business after the women had worn themselves out. The most practical result was the organization of numerous temperance societies of one kind and another, and especially of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, which followed soon after the crusade, and which has kept up the temperance fight ever since, in most parts of the country. The union in Clinton county was organized by Mrs. Ryland T. Brown, and Mrs. Herman Aughe was made the first president, which office she held for seven years.

It was not claimed that this list was complete, but it gives some idea of the temperance activity at that time. There was not only organization, but also agitation, public meetings, lectures, discussion of the question in the newspapers, and all the manifestations of a live propaganda. Temperance sentiment was growing, but the growth was slow, and practically all the ground was gone over again that had been gone over with the generation before the civil war. The education had to be repeated before it became effective.

The temperance agitation in Indiana continued in various forms, and among other activities a petition for a prohibition amendment to the constitution as presented to the legislature of 1881. This caused the liquor people to sit up and take notice, and in 1882 the Liquor League was organized. From that time forward the question became a political one, though not a direct political issue, as the political parties dodged it as far as possible. The liquor people managed to maintain their defenses until 1895, when the Nicholson law gave the temperance element a new foothold, and they pressed their advantage until the Moore law of 1905 gave practical local option through blanket remonstrances from wards and townships.

Advantage was promptly taken of this law in Clinton county. On June 2, 1905, James E. Silverthorn and others filed a blanket remonstrance for Ross township. On August 31, Jesse M. Sheets and others filed a blanket remonstrance for Michigan township. On December 1, Leonard Snodgrass and others filed a blanket remonstrance for Johnson township. On March 2, 1906. John Louks and others filed a blanket remonstrance for Kirklin township. There were court fights over these, as there had been over the individual remonstrances that preceded them, but the steady trend of victory and the growth of public sentiment were with the temperance side.

of sentiment, and aside from the remonstrance litigation there was a continual procession of criminal cases against saloon-keepers who would not obey the law. On September 22, 1903, the city council of Frankfort passed an ordinance prohibiting wine-rooms altogether, imposing a license of $20 for pool tables, and $250 for card tables. It was passed by a unanimous vote, with all members of the council present, and was a clear indication of the strength of public sentiment at the time. Nevertheless the liquor traffic had a strong hold on the city, as may be seen from the following extract from an article by E. H. Staley in the Times of May 30, 1903 :

"There are now eighteen saloons in Frankfort. I am credibly informed - I have made diligent inquiry - that on an average each of these places, where intoxicants are sold, sell wet goods to the amount of $125 a week; many of them have an upstairs, a side or a back room that largely helps to swell their income. One hundred and twenty-five dollars a week is S500 a month, or $6,000 a year for each saloon, or for eighteen saloons $108,000 a year. * * * The churches of Frankfort, the Sunday schools and the day schools stand at one pole of civilization, the saloon at the opposite pole, and between these two points are to be found all those, young and old, and especially the young men, the bone and sinew, the hope or the bane of our civilization. The church with its accompanying influences must reach down towards the opposite extreme, or the saloon will reach up and occupy the field. * * *

The total annual income of the churches of this city is probably $25,000, possibly more, much more. Take off a slice of that, say a fourth of that, and use it to provide suitable, not objectionable, nor yet too straight-laced, too puritanic entertainment, and healthy, mirthful and recreating amusements, and $100,000 or more would not annually be spent in the saloons of this town."

The fight went on steadily, and by January 1, 1909, the outside townships and the First and Second wards of Frankfort were "dry" by blanket remonstrance. There were 27 liquor licenses issued in the county in 1906, 20 in 1907, and 4 in 1908. Then came the "county option law," and on January 1, 1909, a petition for a county option election was filed with the county commissioners. who, on January 11. ordered the election to be held on February 9. It was a fight to the death. Both sides were well organized, and both worked with persistent energy until the polls were closed. The result was a clear victory for the "drys," the vote in detail being as follows :

It will be noticed that the "wets" carried only three precincts in the entire county - the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth in the city of Frankfort - and the total vote in Frankfort was 1,212 "dry" to 985 "wet/' Nevertheless the liquor people had hopes of reversing the sentiment in Frankfort after the repeal of the county option law in 1911. Accordingly, an election for the city of Frankfort was petitioned for; and held on April 4, 1911. Both sides made redoubled exertions, and the result was as follows :

First ward, Precinct i__ First ward, Precinct 2__ Second ward, Precinct 1 Second ward, Precinct 2 Third ward, Precinct i__ Third ward, Precinct 2__ Third ward, Precinct 3__

Although the liquor people had gained 116 votes over their record of 1909, the temperance people had gained 37, and still had a comfortable lead. This vote is commonly regarded as finally decisive. Indeed, the commonly expressed opinion is that, if Frankfort were to vote on the question again, it would go dry by 1,000. There is certainly a notable contrast between the Frankfort of 1913 and the Frankfort of 1908 - and earlier years - that probably explains the existing sentiment. In running through the files of old newspapers, the writer noticed the following in the Crescent of February 4, 1880:

"Rowdyism and ruffianism is gaining ground in Frankfort. During the past week there has scarcely been a night but that the square has witnessed the carousals of the notorious roughs who defy the laws of the city and the guardians of the peace. There are probably a dozen of these rowdies, who, if the leaders were properly punished, would become peaceful citizens, or go to fields where they would be better appreciated. On Friday night one of the gang and a woman, both drunk, came out of an alley on Main street, and went reeling and cursing down Washington street. It is the same story every week, and no arrests made."

Possibly this may have been colored a trifle warmly, but just imagine anybody publishing anything like that, or even approaching it, at present. And then consider why the average citizen should have any desire to return to past conditions. Suppose that some deceased citizen of Frankfort who was familiar only with old-time conditions could revisit the city on some summer evening, perhaps some evening when one of the popular band concerts was in progress, and see the sidewalks thronged with well-dressed, happy people, the streets lined with automobiles, buggies, and carriages, the square covered by an appreciative audience, reclining on the grass and filling the courthouse steps. The change which such an observer would realize is not sentiment; it is history.