Minnehaha County, South Dakota - Chapter 12: Sa"le of Intoxicating Liquors - Santa Fe Scrip and Its Bogus Issue by John D. Cameronimpeachment of Alderman Sampson - Politics, 1899

Chapter 12: Sa"le of Intoxicating Liquors - Santa Fe Scrip and Its Bogus Issue by John D. Cameronimpeachment of Alderman Sampson - Politics

The history of the sale of intoxicating- liquors in Minnehaha county, althoug-ii not differing- widely from what it has been in other places with about the same population where local option and prohibition have been tried, yet it would seem to be of sufficient importance to occupy a little space in a work of this kind.

The first territorial leg-islature passed an act to reg-ulate the sale of spirituous liquors to the extent that it became necessary to procure a license from the county commissioners or the town council of incorporated towns to lawfully sell in less quantities than one pint. The sum to be paid for a license was not to exceed one hundred dollars, nor be less than ten dollars, and in fixing- the amount in each individual case the commissioners and council were chargfed to have "proper reg-ard to the apparent advantag-es of the applicant's situation for business."

Any person disobeying- this restrictive measure, upon conviction was liable to a fine not exceeding- one hundred dollars nor less than thirty dollars, and in case the fine should not be paid, to confinement in the county jail one day for every five dollars of fine. This law took effect May 13, 1862, and from that time there has been trouble in the traffic in quantities of less than a pint.

At the next session of the territorial leg-islature it was made unlawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating- liquors within two miles of any camp or g-rove meeting', convened for the purpose of relig'ious worship.

At the third session of the territorial leg-islature an act was passed "concerning- licenses," also an act prohi]:)iting- the sale of intoxicating- liquors to minors or to anv person on Sundav. These acts took effect January <), 1864.

By the provisions of the act concerning* licenses, tlie lioard of county commissioners and the president and board of trustees of incorporated towns were g'iven authority to g-rant licenses to keep saloons, hotels, public houses and g'roceries, the applicant paying- into the treasury for the privileg-e a sum not exceeding- three hundred dollars, nor less than twenty-five dollars, in the discretion of the hoard, and g-iviny a bond in the sum of live hundred dollars, conditioned that he would "keep an orderly house and not permit any unlawful g"imin^- or riotous conduct in his house." Applications for keeping- saloons or g-roceries mio-ht be rejected, and whenever the board should be satisfied that the ])rivile,i>-e had been abused, thev had the power to revoke the license.

The penal code, approved January 11, 18()5, provided for ])unishino- persons g-uilty of sellino- intoxicating- liquors to Indians, habitual drunkards, persons under eig-hteen years of ag-e and paupers. It also provided that any person found intoxicated in a public place, should be punished by a fine of ten dollars and costs.

The next leg-islation upon this subject was an act approved January 8, 1868, by which a license to run for a period of not less than six months was required for the sale of intoxicating- liquors in any quantity less than a quart. It was also made the duty of the county board, at each term of the district court, to deliver to the g-rand jurv a list of all licensed persons, and the g-rand jury were directed to indict all persons eng-ag-ed in selling- intoxicating- liquors without a license. An important feature of this act was the repeal of that portion of the law of 1864 by which g-roceries were classified with saloons.

The leg-islature on the 10th dav of Januarv, 1873, passed "An act to provide ag-ainst the evils resulting- from the sale of intoxicatingliquors in the Territory of Dakota," which went into effect in July of the same year. The first section of this act declared it to be unlawful for any person without having- first obtained a license, to sell in any quantity intoxicating- liquors, to be drank in, upon or about the |)remises where sold, and that no person should be g-ranted a license without first g-iving- a bond in the sum of three thousand dollars, with two g-ood sureties, conditioned that he would pay all damag-es to any person or persons, which mig-ht be inflicted upon them, either in person or property, or means of support, by reason of the person so obtaining- a license, selling- or giving- awav intoxicating- liquors.

By this act it was made unlawful to sell to minors, or to cause the intoxication of any person; and all the property of the person selling- intoxicating- liquors, real and personal, was made liable to seizure and sale to pa}^ any tine or judg-ment ag-ainst the x>erson, for the violation of the law. At the same session of the legfislature, it was made unlawful to sell or g-ive away any intoxicating- liquors on the dav of any g-eneral or special election.

On the 15th day of January, 1875, the leg-islature passed an act amending- the laws enacted in 1868 and 1873. Under this law, one of the conditions of the bond to be g-iven by the person obtaining a license was, that he would keep a quiet and orderly house, and that the bond g-iven could be sued and recovered upon in a civil action for the use of any person injured bv reason of the selling- of intoxicatingliciuors by the person obtaining- a license. It was also ])rovided, that before the license should be g-ranted, payment should be made in advance. But the most important chang-e was the provision making- it competent and lawful for both the county commissioners of any county and also the mayor and city council of any town or city situated therein, to require the payment of a license. Upon the adjournment of the lejo-islature of 1877, all the laws in reference to the sale of intoxicatint>- liquors were in the revised political code.

Bv this code the amount of the bond required for the sale of intoxicating- liquors, was reduced from three thousand to live hundred dollars, and one of the conditions of the bond in addition to those before required was, that the place of business should "be closed at the hour of eleven-thirty o'clock p. m. every night." Another new feature of this law was that after notice by any person to a county commissioner or mayor, that a relative was in the habit of o-etting" intoxicated, and of whom he w^as in the habit of obtaining- his liquor, it became the duty of the commissioner or mayor to notify such person not to furnish liquor to such habitual drunkard, and in case he did so, he w'as liable to a heavy fine, and also to pay the person causing the notice to be given, the sum of fiv'e hundred dollars for each offense. The amount to be paid for a license was left in the discretion of the county and city authorities, not to exceed three hundred dollars, nor less than thirty dollars, and both county and city license could be required and a city license could not be taken out without first taking- a county license.

The territorial legislature in 1879, revised the whole law by the enactment of chapter 26, comprising- 23 sections. The first section required a license to sell in quantities less than five gallons, and the amount to be paid for a license per year was left in the discretion of the authorities g-ranting licenses, not to exceed five hundred dollars nor less than two hundred dollars. A bond was required in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned to keep a quiet, orderly house, not to permit gambling, and to close at eleven o'clock P. M. every nig-ht. The liabilities imposed for selling- to an habitual drunkard by former acts were retained. Kvery person causing- the intoxication of another person by the sale or giving away of intoxicating- liquors was made liable to pay for his care while intoxicated, and the person who became intoxicated was liable to a fine of not less than five nor more than twenty-five dollars.

Commissioners were made liable to fine for taking- insufficient bonds, and every person selling in violation of the law^ was made liable to both fine and imprisonment.

Drugg-ists w'ere permitted to sell without license upon a physician's prescription. It was not law^ful to sell to minors, and the g-rand juries were enjoined to indict all persons violating- the law.

The legislature of 1881 and 1883 made no change in the law, and the legislature of 1885 only prohibited the sale within one-half mile of any agricultural, horticultural or mechanical fair being held under the auspices of the territorial board of agriculture; within three miles of the University of Dakota; and within one mile of that part of the village of Iroquois and Denver, lying in the county of Kingsbury, during- the time no license should be granted in King-sbury countv.

The legislature of 1887 made no changes in the law of any account, except to raise the maximum fee for a license from three to eig-ht hundred dollars.

The first innovation upon the practice of reg-ulating- the sale of liquors by license, except in isolated cases, was the enactment of the law March 11, 1887, providino- for prohibition by local option.

This act provided for prohibition by counties. Bv its terms, whenever one-third of the lejjfal voters petitioned the county board to submit the question of prohibition to the voters of the county, it became the duty of the board to do so at the next g-eneral election after the filing- of the petition. Chapter 70 of the session laws of 1887, had no more than become the law of the territory, than the prohibitionists in Minnehaha county commenced to make the "wheels o-o round" under its provisions. The petition was obtained and submitted to the board at its July session. 1887, and by the board verv deliberatelv examined, resulting- finallv in an election being" ordered to determine the question in November.

After the question had been settled that the people of Minnehaha county would have an opportunity to vote upon the tjuestion, the next thing- in order of course came about - a campaig-n for and ag-ainst the measure. It was a campaig-n with some new features in it. Women for the first time in the history of the county went to the polls and labored industriously to obtain votes for the measure. When the canvassers were throug-h with their labors, it was known that Minnehaha county was prohibition by a vote of 1,676 /r>r, and 1,288 ar>-a/)is/. The City of Sioux Palls cast 745 for, and 453 ag-ahist the measure. Prohibition had been established by law, and the next question was: What would it avail? It must be said that the prohibitionists, realizing- that a g-ood many persons would be compelled to stop business at a loss not only of a dailv revenue but upon their fixtures, verv kindly and g-enerously intimated by both acts and words, that those who would make a beg-inning- towards closing- the business of sellingintoxicating- liquors would not be unduly accelerated in their movements. This disposition was indorsed by a g-ood many of the g-ood people, but it was only a short time before it was evident that the lions were eating- the lambs, and that closing- up the business in this way would be a ling-ering- experiment, to say the least. Active operations were commenced by way of injunctions. The forces rallied on both sides, and it was for a while a sort of roug-h and tumble fig-ht. One case went to the supreme court and the state prevailed. After the law had been in operation a few months, the violators became enboldened, and when it was decided by the county commissioners in July, 1889, to resubmit the question to a vote in November, all restraint seemed to be removed, and the law had a standing- place only upon the statute book. The vote cast at the November election was for the sale 2,314, ((i>-(ti)ts/ the sale 1,314, and this was the end of prohibition in Minnehaha county under the ])rovisions of the local option law.

On the 22d day of February, 1889, the President sig-ned the act providing- for the admission of South Dakota as a state. This was no sooner done than the prohibitionists beg-an to work for constitutional prohibition, and when the deleg-ates to the constitutional convention assembled, it was soon evident that the cjuestion would hti submitted to a vote of the people in some form.

So desirous were the members of the convention that there should be a strong- vote in favor of the constitution to be submitted by them, that the question of constitutional prohibition was submitted to a separate vote. The vote in the county upon this question was 2,24-4 in /'a vor a,nd 1,44-2 an-aii/s/. The vote in the state was 40,- 234 /"or and 34,510 as^-ahisf.

Article 24 of the constitution is as follows: "No person or corporation shall manufacture or aid in the manufacture for sale, any intoxicating- liquor; no person shall keep for sale, as a beverag-e, anv intoxicating- liquor. The leg-islature shall by law prescribe reg-ulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this section and provide suitable and adequate penalties for the violation thereof."

The first session of the leg-islature of the State of South Dakota for the enactment of laws, convened January 7, 1890, and adjourned the 7th day of March following-. One of the most important matters considered by that body was the framing- of a law to enforce prohibition, and as a result of their labors we have chapter 101 of the session laws of 1890, comprising- 36 sections, which took effect the first day of May following-. It was unskillfully arrang-ed and its meaningobscure, and it would seem that its authors, whenever in doubt just what to do, adopted the plan of covering- the subject with blanket provisions, hoping- that, in some way, a construction would be put upon them, calculated to destroy the traffic in intoxicating- liquors.

Of course, it could not be expected, that the law would be a wise one in all respects, but there was no excuse for its unintellig-ible provisions in reference to jurisdictional matters, that must naturally arise in its attempted execution. While criticising- it, it is but just to say, that its provisions were strong- enoug-h to make it a terror to evil doers, provided public sentiment had favored its enforcement. It is one thing- to enact a law, and quite another to enforce it, and no intellig-ent person will have the courag-e to say that there is any other subject upon which penal leg-islation, here or elsewhere, has ever been enacted that is so dependent upon public sentiment for its execution. The larg-e interests involved, the desire for strong- drink, the dislike by persons and communities to be dictated to in matters of this kind, all conspire to make the enforcement of prohibitory laws almost an utter imposibility in certain localities. Minnehaha county, and especially Sioux Falls, is one of those localities.

Soon after the first of May in 1890, proceeding-s were commenced in Sioux Palls with the view of closing- the saloons. C. O. Bailey, then state's attorney, proceeded to take testimony in reference to the sale of intoxicating- liquors, but in his innocence failed to subpoena before him such persons as had the required knowledg-e. It is interesting- to know the different phases the defense has taken as time lias ])rog-ressed. At first the witnesses had drank in several places, but their recollection was dim as to when it was, possibly it was be- Fore the first of May; it was whiskey and beer, but when it was, thev could not remember.

The next attempt was made in Se[)tember, 1890. Testimon\- was procured and injunctions broug-ht ag-ainst the Sioux Falls Brewery and about thirty saloons in the county before the first day of Januarv, 1891.

Three or four informations were tiled a^-ainst persons, charg-inothem with selling- intoxicating- liquors as a beverag-e, at the September term of the county court in 1890. In all these proceeding-s, W. A. Wilkes, Esq., was associated with the writer in the prosecution, having- been employed by the Sioux Falls Committee of One Hundred. In March, 1891, several informations were tiled in the countv court and jury trials had. In May following- about a dozen indictments were found by the grand jury, charging persons with selling and keeping- for sale intoxicating- liquors. Prom that time until 1895, a few violations of the law were brought to the attention of the g-rand jury, and indictments found, and occasionally an effort would be made to close the saloons not only in Valley Springs, Garretson, Hartford, Baltic and Dell Rapids, but in Sioux Falls.

Right here we will devote a little space to the history of the Law and Order leagues that have been organized in Minnehaha countv, especially those which were orgfanized after statehood.

As soonas the prohibitory law had been enacted, both its friends and enemies looked upon Sioux Falls as the place where its efficiency would be determined. At a very early date the friends of the law in Sioux Falls organized a local leag-ue, a branch of the state leag-ue, which had been organized for the enforcement of the law, and evervthing was put on a war footings. Notwithstanding this org-anization, eighty-three citizens of Sioux Falls sig-ned a call for a mass meeting, to be held on the 7th day of March, 1890, for the purpose of considering- the advisability of a still further local org-anization in aid of enforcement. This meeting- w^as well attended, and the subject of the enforcement of the law was discussed in all its bearings. After a long session, a committee of tive was appointed to draft a constitution for the government of an independent local Law and Order league. The meeting- adjourned until the 11th day of March, and on that day the committee presented the draft of a constitution to gfovern a local Law and Order association "to aid in the enforcement of the laws of the state and the ordinances of the city." The work of the committee was unanimously adopted, and the association orgfanized with a full corps of officers.

It was about this time that a new feature was injected into the prohibition arena. The "original package decision," rendered bv the United States supreme court, gave the liquor dealers power to practically evade the law, and they put on a bold front. The Val Blatz brewing company of Milwaukee put on the streets of Sioux Falls, for the delivery of beer in "orig-inal packag-es," a very tine red wagon, drawn by a very attractive pair of horses "togg-ed out" in g»-reat shape. But the prohibitionists of the country went to the fountain head, and secured the passag-e by Cong-ress of an act that took the "original packag-e" feature off the tield of battle.

But it is hardly \vithin the scope of this work, and we will rest content with saying that in our opinion it is inexpedient and unwise to attempt by such org-anizations to aid in the enforcement of law, whether it be for the suppression of the sale of intoxicating*- liquors, the whipping of immoral persons, or the lynching- of horse-thieves. Efforts of this character, w^hen purely in aid of the local officials, are at best ephemeral in character, and when they subside and their stimulating- influence is a thing- of the past, it is impossible that the lawfully constituted authorities should not be carried back from their outposts with the subsiding- wave.

The trials to a jury upon informations and indictments were anything- but satisfactory. In some cases where the testimony was overwhelming-ly conclusive as to the g-uilt of the persons charg-ed, and no attempt made to contradict the testimonv, the jurv acquitted or failed to ag-ree. If the crime charg-ed had been burg-lary, robberv or other crimes of like character, the testimony would have been ample, and a conviction would have resulted. However much such a state of facts was to be deplored, the fact remained that such was the condition of affairs in Minnehaha countv during- the attempted enforcement of prohibition. In fact, the violation of the prohibitory law was. not looked upon by the public like the violation of any other law, and the verdicts of jurors will not rise above public sentiment, and no one but an unreasoning- enthusiast will ever expect to enforce a prohibitory law without the aid of a strong-, healthy public sentiment in favor of it. The adverse public sentiment not only affects jurors, but it deters public prosecutors in the performance of their duties, and our judg'-es are more or less influenced and intimidated in their actions by it. It was impossible to convict anyone charg-ed with selling- intoxicating- liquors, unless he was friendless. In some cases where the defendant was known to be g-uilty of about everything- else, and his character was known to the trial jury, a conviction was obtained and the minimum punishment inflicted, but in no other case was there a conviction, with one exception. The testimony upon the trials was usually g-iven by either witnesses who were employed to g-et the testimony, or by those who testified unwilling-ly, and after four years of experience with them it is still an open question with the writer which class is the most available. It would be a hard matter to g-et tog-ether twelve jurymen who w^ould believe the first class. There is a widespread prejudice ag-ainst spotter testimony, as it is called, and verdicts of g-uilty upon the testimony of "spotters" are not returned.

But how is it with the other class? They commence by knowingnothing-, and the longer you interrogate them the less they know. Drive them into a corner and you will find that their eyesig-ht is dim - their hearing- hard - their sense of smell impaired, and as to their sense of taste, why, it never had been educated to discern liquids. Call their attention to buttermilk and molasses, and a ray of intellig-ence will brig-hten up their countenances for a moment, but name beer or whiskey, and they will become as expressionless as a g-raven image. xVnd this is what public sentiment will do to a witness.

The nuisance feature of the law, was at first supposed to be an insurmountable obstacle in the way of maintaining- a place of business for the sale of intoxicating- liquors. An injunction upon the business and closing- the doors, would at first blush seem to be a pretty effectual remedy. But it did not prove to be very damag-ing- to the liquor interests. Before proceedinjjfs could be commenced, testimony had to be procured, and it had to be clear and unequivocal that the premises soug-ht to be closed were used for the sale of intoxicating- liquors contrary to law. This would appear to be an easy matter, but instead of receiving- assistance in obtaining- testimony, every conceivable obstacle was thrown in the wav of the prosecutor. An unwilling- witness, as a rule, never tells the whole truth, and the portion left untold is just what is wanted. If- a "spotter" is employed, he requires constant attention, and if his wants are not looked after by his orig-inal employer, he g-ets nourishment from the other side, and when you are ready to use him he is g-enerally to be found in the camp of the enemy. For awhile, all the places closed belong-ed to innocent parties, and under the statute they proceeded at once to g-ive bonds, that the premises should not be used for a year in the liquor business, and g-ot them released and the action abated. Some of the places enjoined would not sell at auction for ten dollars - the parties occupying- them worthless - and when von closed one shanty, they would slide into another hen-house and set up business.

One of the circuit judg-es in the state held that a person eng^aged in the business of selling- intoxicating- liquors himself in his own building-, could repent, pay the costs, g-ive bonds for one year and be absolved. In short, have the injunction dissolved and the proceeding-s abated. The platter had been pretty cleanly licked before, l>ut this "lapped out the spoon."

Ag-ain, it was somewhat troublesome at times to g-et the necessary and legfitimate costs paid. The county board, or rather a majority of the members believing- that nothing- could come of attempted enforcement, were for the first two years adverse to expense beingincurred in liquor prosecutions, and this made it unpleasant for the officials eng-ag-ed in the work.

"Dear sir: - We the undersig-ned, citizens and taxpayers of the City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha county, do respectfully request that in the future you desist from suing- out of court any writ or writs of injunction restraining- the sale of liquors in this city, or taking- any steps toward enforcing- the present prohibitory law. We respectfully sug-g-est that your own experience in seeking- to enforce such law must have convinced you of the utter futility of such eifort, and call your attention to the 'Fine System' so called, that is in operation in this city, and venture the opinion that it is productive of far better results than the 'Hole in the Wall' system which prevailed prior to the institution of such Fine system. We call your attention to the larg-e sums of money that have been expended in the attempt to enforce the prohibitory law, and request that no further l^urdens of this nature be imposed upon the citizens and taxpayers of this county."

commissioners of that date) requesting" the state's attorney to desist and refrain from bring-ing- any action either civil or criminal under the prohibition act, unless fully satisfied that a conviction could be had; and also gave a little advice to the court in the matter. We do not refer to this for any other purpose than to show that there was an "irrepressible conflict" always being- wag-ed, whenever the question of prohibition was broug-ht into the courts in Minnehaha county, and that the impression prevailed that it was impossible to enforce the law. That the utility of any law can be determined best by its enforcement is conceded; that unwise or odious laws had better be repealed than evaded, will be conceded by all g-ood citizens, and that it is not within the province of those appointed to enforce the laws to so manag-e as to make them a dead letter, will also be admitted; but notwithstanding- all this, it is a fact that can not be controverted, that it is the laws, and only the laws, that meet with the approbation of the public, that are heartily and successfully enforced.

The leg-islature of 1895, submitted the question to a vote of the electors at the g-eneral election in 1896, whether article twentv^-four of the constitution should be repealed. The prohibitionists at once beg-an active work to defeat the proposed amendment, and, on the other hand, those in favor of the license system were not idle. It was a well foug-ht campaig-n throug-hout the state. The result was a vote 31,901 /(>»;-, and 24,910 ao-a/zist the repeal. At the next session of the leg-islature (1897j a hig-h license law was passed. It is evident that the law makers intended to cover the whole field of licensing-, restricting- and reg'ulating- the sale of intoxicating- liquors in such a manner as to remove some of the most objectionable features that usually attend the retailing- of intoxicating- liquors as a beverag-e. It has several prohibitive clauses, namely:

No one who has served a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary can obtain a license, and no one convicted of keeping- a disorderly house after the enactment of the law- will be permitted to receive a license. iSlo person under twenty-one years of ag-e can obtain a license for selling- intoxicating- liquors, and no person without first obtaining- a certificate sig-ned bv twenty-five leg-al voters residingin the precinct where he proposes to eng-ag-e in business; "that he is a person of g-ood moral character, and one who can be safely trusted to eng-ag-e in the business or calling- of selling- intoxicating- liquors at retail," and no person under twenty-one years of ag-e can become a bartender in a saloon. It is made the duty of all venders of intoxicating- liquors to keep the windows or doors of their respective places of -business unobstructed by screens, blinds, paint, or other articles, and to have the windows so located that there may bean unobstructed view from the main street into the entire room, and no partitions, tables, chairs or seats are permitted in the place of business, and no g-ames are allowed. All places where intoxicating- liquors are sold are required to be closed on Sunday, and on all election days from six o'clock in the morning- until six o'clock in the evening-, and on each week day nig-ht from and after the hour of eleven o'clock until five o'clock the succeeding- morning-. It is made unlawful for any person to sell, furnish or g-ive away any intoxicating- liquors to any minor, or intoxicated person, or to anv person in the habit of o-ettin^- intoxicated, or to any person when forbidden in writino- so to do by the husband, wife, parent, child, truardian or employer of such person, or the supervisor of the township, or the president or trustee of a town, mayor of a city, or the board of county commissioners of the county where such person shall reside or temporarily remain.

Ag-ain there is a local option feature. At the annual municipal election held in any township, town or city, the question of g-rantinopermits to sell intoxicatino- liquors at retail, must be submitted to the leo-al voters upon the petition of twenty-five leo"il voters of such township, town or city, and if a majority vote ag-ainst the o-rantini;- of permits then the g-ranting- of permits is prohibited.

Upon the business of manufacturing- or selling- spiritous or intoxicating- liquors at wdiolesale an annual license of one thousand dollars is required to be paid; upon the business of selling- brewed and malt liquors at wholesale, six hundred dollars; and upon the manufacture of same, four hundred; and upon the business of retailing intoxicating liquors, the sum of four hundred dollars must be paid to the county treasurer, and such further sum not less than two hundred dollars, nor more than six hundred dollars to the township, town or city where the business is to be eng-ag-ed in, as such township, town or city may by ordinance require.

All persons before eng-ag'ing- in the sale of intoxicating- liquors are required to g-ive a bond in the sum of two thousand dollars, with two g-ood sureties, conditioned, that they will conform to all the requirements of the law and pav all judg-ments for damag-es or fines imposed for the violation of any of its provisions.

The foreg-oing-, althoug'h not a full summary, comprises the main features of the law under which the manufacture and traffic in intoxicating- liquors is now being- conducted in South Dakota.

"Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring- therein: That the following- amendment to the constitution of the State of South Dakota is hereby ag-reed to, and which amendment, when approved and ratified, shall become part of the constitution as Article twenty-seven thereof.

"The manufacture and sale of intoxicating- li(|uors shall be under exclusive state control and shall be conducted by duly authorized ag-ents of the state who shall be paid by salary and not by commissions. All liquors sold shall be first examined by a state chemist and the purity thereof established.

"The leg-islature shall by law prescribe reg-ulations for tlie enforcement of the provisions of this article and jn-ovide suitable and adequate penalties for the violation thereof."

This amendment was submitted to the electors at the g-eneral election in November, 1808, and was ratified by them by a majority of 1,613. The vote in the county was 1,340 for, and 1,097 ag-ahis/ its ratification. This matter was scarcely alluded to during- the campaign, and was not made a party measure. The vote itself is evidence of the fact that a large proportion of the people did not take enoug-h interest in the measure to reg-ister their votes.

We say "it is the law under which the manufacture and sale of intoxicating- liquors is now being- conducted" that is, if it can be lawfully conducted at all. As seen above, it was incumbent upon the legislature of 1899 to enact a law for its enforcement, but when it assembled there proved to be such a contrariety of views entertained by the members that no measure proposed could obtain the necessary votes to secure its passage, and the leg-islature adjourned without enacting- any law upon the subject.

One thing- is certain, the State of South Dakota has a remarkable record upon the liquor question; license, local option, prohibition, and hig-h license, and now, althoug-h the constitution of the State prescribes that "the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be conducted by duly authorized agents of the State, who shall be paid a salarv" for so doing, the State is not manufacturing or sellingintoxicating liquors.

It is evident that the people of the State in the near future will endeavor to rescue the subject from its present entanglement, but what the end will be, no one would dare to predict.

On the 3d day of March, 1879, Congress passed an act which provided that settlers upon unsurveyed lands could have the same surveyed by applying to the surveyor g-eneral and depositing money with some assistant treasurer or other designated depository of the United States to defray the expenses of the survey. Upon the money being deposited the depository was instructed by a circular issued by the commissioner of the general land office to issue triplicate certificates in the sums not less than S200 each, that the settler had deposited such sums, the original certificate to be sent to the secretary of the treasurer, the duplicate to surveyor general of the district in which the land was situated, and the triplicate to the settler. The triplicate could be used by the settler in payment for public land, and it was assignable to other parties for the same use. Large sums of this scrip were issued. At first it sold at a discount, but the demand for it had so increased in 1881 that it left but a small margin. The certificates were printed upon paper ordinarily used for blanks, and no methods were used in their manufacture to make them difficult to counterfeit.

It was at this stage of affairs that John D. Cameron, then a resident of Sioux Falls, conceived the idea of counterfeiting this scrip. A large amount of it was manufactured. Of course, at a discount of eig-ht per cent it was an object for bankers and land agents in localities where parties wished to pay for g-overnment land to have scrip on hand to supply their customers.

To put this into circulation, a bogus firm under the name of Burt & Miller of St. Louis, Mo., sent circulars to the banks and land agents all over the Northwest that they could furnish this scrip, designated as Santa Fe Scrip, at the discount above named.

the McKinney & Scouo-al Bank SI, 000. The scrip ordered hv the First National Bank came to John D. Cameron, and he claimed that he had been appointed ao-ent for the sale of the scrip in Dakota, but the bank havino- become suspicions, refused to take it. McKinnev & Scou^al had expressed the mone\' in payment of the scrip ordered, but were warned in time to stop its delivery by the express company.

C H. Winsor of Sioux Falls was sent to St. Louis to look up Burt & ]Miller, but he was unable to find the parties comprisino- the hrm, althoug-h an office of Burt & Miller was found furnished with a table and two chairs with a boy in chartre.

But it was a short-lived swindle. The bo<j-us scrip was an exact counterfeit of the origfinal. The conspirators - for Cameron had accomplices - after procuring- the paper and type sent a printer from Beloit, la., to Canton, S. D., where he printed the boo-us scrip.

P. A. Haverold of Sioux Falls, was employed to fill out the scrip, but the prospect of g-ettino- considerable money in a very short time induced him, while in an intoxicated condition, to disclose to an importunate creditor his expectations of soon having- all the money he wanted. The creditor was (juv Weed, deput}^ United States marshal, and he succeeded in getting- from Haverold a pretty full account of the knavish scheme of the conspirators. Weed reported what he had learned to the United States authorities, and they promptly instituted a thoroug-h investig-ation which resulted in the arrest of Cameron on the 3d day of May, 1882, and the seizure of his office papers which furnished considerable incriminating- evidence ag-ainst him. At the next term of the United States court at Yankton, Cameron, W. D. Russell of Yankton, and E. E. Carpenter of Beloit, were indicted charg-ed in substance with counterfeiting- this scrip and conspiring- to defraud the g-overnment. A larg-e number of witnesses were summoned in the case, about forty being- from Sioux Falls. There was a leng-thy trial of the case, but it did not result favorably to the g-overnment. On two occasions it was continued over the term, and finally a chang-e of venue was taken to St. Louis, Mo. At the first term there the case was continued, althoug-h the usual number of witnesses were in attendance. At the next term the case was abandoned by the g-overnment. It was an expensive case to all parties concerned, and especially to Mr. Cameron, who not only paid out a larg-e sum of money in his defense, but was compelled to lie in jail some time, being- unable to procure bail. Another feature of the case was the suspicion in the community that the escape of Mr. Cameron from punishment was owing- to the fact that there were other parties than those indicted who were g-reatly interested in his acquittal, fearing- if he was convicted he mig-ht make disclosures that would be unpleasant for them to meet.

Impeachment Of Alderman Joseph Sampson

Joseph Sampson, who has been a resident of Sioux Falls for several years and engag-ed principally in g-rading- work upon streets and railroads, was expelled from the city council on June 7, 1895, and his office of alderman from the Sixth ward declared vacant. Mr. Sampson has been a prominent figure in Sioux Falls. He was active in politics, particularly in everything relating to city aifairs. He was appointed street commissioner in 1889, and again in 1891, and held the office until November 16, 1892. At the city election in 1893, he was elected alderman from the Sixth ward, and in 1894, he was elected president of the council. Mayor Williams, owing to severe illness, left the city for medical treatment on the 20th day of March, 1895, and thereupon Mr. Sampson became the acting mayor of Sioux Falls, and so remained until the 6th day of May, 1895. During the time he w^as acting mayor he collected from the disorderly houses in the city $767.50. This was deposited in the Union National bank to his credit, and checked out by him on the 27th day of April, as he said, for the purpose of paying- certain persons the amount of their claims against the city. This he did not do, but left the city in the early part of May for Wyoming, where his wife had gone a short time before. He was elected alderman from the Sixth ward at the city election in April, and qualified as such at the proper time. Soon after he left, the question as to what had become of the money belonging to the city that he had checked out in April, was brought to the attention of the city officials, and when they were unable to find that it had been used for any lawful purpose, or that it had been left with anyone in the city, the matter was taken before the grand jury and they returned an indictment against him for embezzlement. Mr. Sampson was easily located at Sundance, Wyoming, and the sheriff at that place took him in charge upon instructions received from the county officials of Minnehaha county, and Sheriff Hubbard went to Sundance with a warrant for his arrest and brought him to Sioux Palls. Soon after his return to Sioux Falls, he was arraigned upon the indictment, and when the time arrived for him to plead, his counsel, John E. Garland and Joseph Kirby, made a motion to quash the indictment, for the reason that Sheriff Hubbard had assisted in drawing the grand jury for the April term of the circuit court, having at the same time suits, in which he was a party, upon the calendar for trial. This motion was sustained by the court, and Mr. Sampson was held in bonds of $1,000, to answer at the next term of court upon the same charge. A good many rumors were in circulation in the city as to what had become of the money. But, as Mr. Sampson had not accounted to the city. Alderman Lien, at the regular monthly meeting- of the council on the 3d day of June, offered a resolution, which was adopted without a dissenting- vote, calling- upon Mr. Sampson to appear before the council on June 7, to show cause why he should not be expelled from the council. The preamble to the resolution set up the facts in reference to his obtaining- the money, and his official connection with it, and that he was a member of the city council. On the 7th day of June the council met, and there was a large attendance to witness what was anticipated w^ould prove to be a "great moral show." The proceedings were tame. No dramatic features appeared. The resolution was read, and Mr. Sampson denied that the city council had any authority to expel him, and also denied that the allegations in the charge were true. He admitted drawing the money, and said he still had it in his possession, but that he "would not turn it over until the injunction served on him was dissolved, and the criminal proceedinofs a^'ainst him dropped." When throut^h with his defense, the roll was called upon the resolution, and the vote stood eleven for (Mr. Sampson voti nono), and Mr. Sampson was declared to be no long-er a member of the city council of Sioux Palls. It only remains to add that the char<»-es were investig^ated by the next g-rand jury, but no indictment was found.

The Countv of Minnehaha was the most populous county in the Territory of Dakota for fifteen years prior to its division and admission into the Union as the states of North and South Dakota, and since that time it has had a larg-er population than any other countv in the State of South Dakota. Owing- to the fact that it has the larg-est citv in the state within its limits, the politics of the countv has a sort of metropolitan air that is not found elsewhere in the state. During- the early days no county had g-reater influence in territorial affairs than Minnehaha, and the respective parties were able to maintain party lines upon territorial issues. Until 18%, the republican party had a g-ood working- majority in the countv, but it must be admitted that a good deal of g-uerrilla warfare was carried on in respect to county officials, and now and then the unexpected would happen and a nominee of the weaker party or an independent candidate be elected. But the g-reat influence of the county in territorial and state politics has been larg-ely due to the fact that it has been the home of a larg-e number of leaders not only in one partv org-anization but in all. It must be conceded that it is the political center of the state, the Mecca that all aspirants for office visit, the l:)irthplace of political schemes for the public welfare. There is no place in the state that enjoys the reputation of havingdiscovered so many men qualified to serve the public as Sioux Falls. At least, the statesmen in Sioux Falls seem to act as a sifting- committee, and when an aspirant for office is found wanting- in availability he g-enerallv has time to devote to his ordinary pursuits. Yes, Minnehaha county is a g-reat county for politics, and it bids fair to remain so for some years to come. During- the last decade there has been but few removals from the ranks of its politicians, by death or otherwise, while on the other hand new political prodig-ies have claimed the attention of the public. The time may come when the disease known as political death may invade the political ranks in Minnehaha county, but so far, althoug-h several politicians have been supposed to be dead, it has turned out in the end that they were only hibernating- for a season. For political thrift, enterprise and energ-y, for earnest, vig-orous effort with no ulterior selfish end in view but the public gfood, for self-abneg-ation and subserviency of all personal ambition, the politicians of Minnehaha countv of all deg-rees, big-, little, and diminutive, war horses, mules and colts, taken collectively, bv pairs or individually, are the peers of any similar ag-g-reg-ation on the continent.