by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The passage of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in January 1919 and taking an effect a year later, which sought to end the making, selling and transport of intoxicating alcoholic beverages, culminated decades of effort by temperance advocates, largely led by women’s organizations and churches, who worked at the local and state levels through such efforts as the “local option,” in which ordinances were sought in cities and towns throughout the country.
In Los Angeles, there were movements spearheaded by such groups as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Methodist Church to pass just such a law. A major push led to an election held on 3 June 1905 and, in the runup to that vote, Michael Rieder, a long-time postcard manufacturer in town, published the highlighted object from the Homestead’s artifact collection for this post, one that asked “Los Angeles is going dry?” and featured a drawing that showed buildings with new signs of “Checker Room,” “W.C.T.U. Reading Room,” and “Salvation Army” replacing ones that read “Pool Room” and “Saloon,” while a drug store offered “Sodas?” and “Long Life Bitters,” an alcoholic product long marketed as medicine.
Rieder’s apparently sardonic take attracted the attention of someone known only as “Leo,” who sent the card, with the short message of “Rowland will move out of L.A. if the liquor ban takes effect,” to a recipient in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where it was cancel stamped on 27 May. What we’ll do here is look at just that day’s media coverage of the intense campaign and then return on the 3rd to summarize the election results.
The most vocal advocate among the Angel City’s newspapers for the saloon ban was the Los Angeles Express, which offered several days’ worth of public commentary, while also publishing articles that contended that economic growth was more likely because of a prohibition because this was claimed to be the case for Riverside, a city some 60 miles east, and that tourism would increase if the ban was put into place.
This latter assertion came as the paper alluded to claims made by some that tourism would decline if the ordinance was passed, but it turned to the local chapter of the Anti-Saloon League, with the regional branch formed in the 1890s not long after the national organization was launched. The local official referred to by the Express was Dr. Ervin S. Chapman, a Presbyterian minister and superintendent of the local chapter, whose work has been previously mentioned in this blog relating to letters in the Museum’s holdings from summer 1910.
One was from E.T. Burrowes, owner of a Portland, Maine insect screen company, who asserted that the tourist trade in his state was such that “the absence of open saloons is very much more of an attraction than open saloons could possibly be.” A.I. Root, proprietor of a beekeeping supply firm in Medina, Ohio, insisted that “I am quite sure the majority of those who travel prefer temperance town. Joshua Stansfield of Indianapolis wrote “I am delighted to hear of the prospects of the banishment of the saloon in your fair city of Los Angeles” because he seemed to know that “the bulk of persons from the East who can make Pacific tours are largely from the temperate and industrious classes,” while likely settlers knew that saloons “are a menace to morals and an economic loss.”
Of course, anyone corresponding with the Anti-Saloon League would hold corresponding views on the evils of drink and the devastation to society (and there is no doubt that alcoholism was ruinous to the individual and the family). The Express claimed to have “ANOTHER SALOON LIE NAILED” when it cited the case of a local justice of the peace who wrote a letter to a paper and reprinted in a pamphlet issued by the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association, which lobbied hard against the proposed ordinance.
The jurist claimed that, despite the severe temperance laws in Kansas, the city of Topeka, where he resided for a decade, had more than 100 saloons, but the paper wrote to the publisher of that city’s Journal newspaper, who answered that there were no taverns there “and scarcely a vacant store room,” which seemed to be testament to the strong economy in the city of 35,000, while it was added that “liquor may be sold behind locked doors . . . in a few places, probably not more than a dozen.”
The paper also remarked on the growing religious interest in the anti-saloon question, remarking that,
With no-saloon meetings in many parts of town every evening this week the church world has had little leisure to think about anything except the campaign which is being waged against the saloons and little else has been discussed either by ministers or laymen.
One such gathering was that of a ministerial federation in the Angel City which gathered at the Y.W.C.A. “for the express purpose of reviewing the no-saloon situation and hearing reports of what had been accomplished.” A cartoon in the paper, meanwhile, depicted a “Race Meet” on election day pitting a thoroughbred horse representing “The People” and on which was mounted the jockey, Chapman, and the “M&M Ass” with the face of its secretary, Felix Zeehandelaar, and ridden by the “Licensed Saloon” wearing a bartender’s arm sash inscribed with “Vice” and a whiskey bottle protruding from the back pocket of well-worn trousers.
The Los Angeles Times reported on the fact that “Dana W. Bartlett, the genius of Bethlehem Institution, is bubbling with enthusiasm over the prospect of corraling (should the no-saloon ordinance be adopted) some of the best-equipped saloons in his district and transforming them into up-to-date coffee clubs—poor men’s clubs.” This was not an uncommon concept with respect to finding a substitute for alcohol among working men (though one wonders how much Bartlett and others cogitated about some of the economic, as well as societal, causes for the high incidence of imbibing among working-class people).
Claiming to have spent enough time among them to be an authority of the subject, Bartlett told the paper that “they will find a hole in the wall somewhere, and now is our opportunity” to transform taverns into java houses, claiming “why, it will be great; men and their families are ready this minute to move in and take possession of just such homelike places where the home life will be a reality.” He expostulated,
It’s the very thing—the very thing, men must have some place and have it quick, to take the place of the saloon they have been frequenting evenings, perhaps for years, and what a hit it would be to invite them to their old haunts with our change of menu on the counter and in the ice chest.
Even if the anti-saloon measure was to fail, the pastor continued, it was up to supporters to band together and “establish efficient and inviting counter-attractions along extensive and practical lines.” Such a model was to be found at Bethlehem’s Coffee Club Association, run by the church’s Benevolent Board, as it was recorded that one of the places operated was formerly in space “occupied by one of the most notorious resorts in the city no more than a year ago.”
Coming straight out of Rieder’s postcard, the Association’s efforts were said to be such that, “all these places are crowded every day, and men can get not only food but a comfortable place to rest while they read or occupy themselves in the diversion of checkers or chess.” Other services included package checking (though why was not stated) and a labor bureau,” with everything provided gratis except a nominal charge for grub.
Bartlett asked for $10,000 in donations to set up another half-dozen more coffee houses to continue the movement, with it added that a “proper environment, good food and clean amusements will save many a man from the drink habit,” while Bartlett claimed that the “Bethlehem Idea” was well-fitted “to promote the full and happy development of the body, mind and soul of all who come to us.” He also asserted,
We ask no questions about the past; we seek to draw out the best that is in every man. Many men go to the saloon simply as the best available place for social intercourse with their acquaintances and to talk business and politics. The drinks may always go, but in many cases they have not been the primary purpose of the visit . . .
I believe that $150,000, the cost of one large city church, if expended in these directions, will redeem Los Angeles from the drink evil . . . There should be a hearty response to this proposition, for these are the days when we are making history for Los Angeles.
Given Chapman’s denomination, it is not surprising to see in the “Church Services” column of the Times that the Immanuel Presbyterian Church at Figueroa Street at 10th Street (now Olympic Boulevard) was offering an evening sermon by him on “How We Can Surely Win this No-Saloon Battle.”
The paper attempted some humor in the subject in its “Pen Points” section, including its remark that “one of the most serious shocks of the campaign is the fact that several of the ablest Prohibition orators are Kentuckians,” as well as “if the anti-saloon ordinance should pass . . . [perhaps] the reformers will endeavor to realize their long-cherished dream of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of doughnuts.” On a more serious note, it claimed that defeat of the measure would not be good for saloons as “it will merely pave the way for high license [fees] and the tightening of the policeman’s dragnet around the whole booze business.”
In an editorial titled “INTEMPERANCE OF UTTERANCE,” the paper lamented the “vituperation, invective and overheated utterances of every description” during the campaign, which “give scandal to the community.” It added that “the very essence of Christian charity has been frequently violated and an acrimonious sting injected into the controversy which is not only ill-seeming, but ill-bred, as well.
The paper allowed that those against the measure were due to “a respectful hearing,” but it excoriated those who called supporters “long hairs” and “holier-than-thou hypocrites” and called the effort “malicious bigotry” and “crankism,” as this was deemed by the Times to be “outside the limits of decency and the polite usages of good society.”
On the other hand, the anti-saloon advocates were called to task for the weakening of “principles of charitable conduct” when tavern owners were referred to as representing “all that is vile, vicious and low,” while a temperance leader was said to have called saloon-keepers as “criminals” and “villainous lawbreakers. The piece commented that “all this is very poor tactics, very unneighborly and totally at variance with Christianity and the truth” with both sides guilty of such behavior “which is indeed a matter for sincere regret.”
The most liberal of the Angel City’s newspapers, the Los Angeles Record printed “EDITORIALS BY RECORD READERS” with one purporting to represent the city’s German-American community and its position that opposition to the proposed ordinance was based on its commitment to freedom. It even cited those who fought in the Civil War because of anti-slavery reasons and the keeping whole the Union as something of a precursor for this fight for “personal liberty.”
While it was known that many German-Americans made their living in the alcohol business, the writer continued that he and his fellows believed passage of the measure would “ruin our beautiful city, expose it to universal ridicule and stop its progress; it will drive away our visitors, [and] depreciate all property values.” Moreover, it was claimed the poor would suffer more, because the rich were more apt to find ways to get their booze, while experience purportedly showed that prohibitions did not reduce drunkenness.
Finally, it was claimed that German-Americans “fully know that great radical reforms in the management of the liquor traffic are necessary” and they would collaborate with “all true temperate people who have the welfare of humanity at heart.” For now, however, the community would unite in voting against “the pernicious measure” and demonstrate that they were “foes of all coercion and maintainers of our natural rights.” The author concluded,
Down with hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness; long live truth, honesty, freedom. Long live our beautiful city of Los Angeles.
Another correspondent had a novel solution as “A TIP FOR DRINKERS,” namely, that each of them should purchase a gallon of their favorite alcoholic beverage and make their wives their personal bartenders. That amount of whisky, it was said, cost $3 and held about 65 drinks costing 15 cents each in the saloon, but, the imbiber could provide his spouse that 15 cents per drink and provide her a profit of $6.75 a gallon.
It was then propounded that,
This money she should put away, so that when you have become an inebriate, unable to support yourself and shunned by every respectable man, your wife may have money to keep you until your time comes to fill a drunkard’s grave.
The paper also commented on how “the no-saloon campaign in Los Angeles has devised many unique ideas as to ways and means of arousing favorable sentiment in connection with the proposed anti-saloon ordinance.” The Olivet Congregational Church was cited for its upcoming Sunday evening confab, including speeches, poems and songs and the lyrics of one of these latter, penned by Emily Boller, wife of the pastor, was published.
Set to the tune of a popular ditty called “No, Sir,” the lyrics were:
Tell me one thing, tell me truly,
That when voting you will go,
FRIDAY MORN, you’ll bravely answer,
The saloon by voting “NO.”
Men, when true, are our protectors,
Stand for right and God and home,
But when false, are weak and nerveless,
They allow saloons to come
Here are girls and boys about us,
Waiting to see which win,
Watching you, to see, if maybe,
You will comprise with sin.
So for us [women] who have no ballot,
To protect our children, dear;
Rouse yourself and strike for freedom,
Cleanse our town from rum and beer.
Otherwise mentioned were outdoor meetings to drum up support for the proposed ordinance, as well as mass meetings twice on Sunday at the Temple Baptist Church auditorium, recently completed and later home of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, as well as efforts by pro-measure supporters to provide transport to “dry” voters.
It was added that saloons were to be closed on election day and shuttered five hours early the evening prior, so as to limit those “becoming hors du combat through too strong flirtations over the mahogany” bar tops and not voting. The Record referred to this as “the signs of some Machiavellian mind” and “a master hand at the art of political strategy” and quoted the owner of the Del Monte as saying that “our men are fighting for the life of our business,” while he added that “after we win, as saloonkeepers we do not care to have it said that the result was influenced by improper means.”
At Turner Hall, the German Turnverein organization headquarters, a mass gathering was to include speeches in English, French, Italian and German, with support from organizations, including German and Italian ones, numbering some 6,000 voters, half of them German-American. They were to echo the feeling manifested in the aforementioned letter to the paper concerning “personal liberty” and the “lawful enjoyment of life.”
Lastly, the paper published an anti-saloon cartoon that showed “The Poor Man’s Club,” meaning the tavern, and the “Poor Man’s Home” depicting a desolate family as an exemplar, said to be a “unique method of attack,” of a “stronger and more effective” means of reaching out to prospective voters that was better “than columns of argument.”
The Los Angeles Herald was firmly against the proposed ordinance. It reported briefly on the Temple Auditorium gathering and the fact that “much interest is being manifested by the church members in the campaign.” It also scored the Express for its support, while also asserting that, when it came to advocacy on both sides, “there should be no limit upon freedom of speech in Los Angeles so long as it is not conducive to disorder and lawlessness.”
Its main editorial was headed “A BROAD-GAUGE VIEW” and which opined that,
A vast majority of the zealous advocates of saloon abolition unconsciously take a narrow view of the situation. They abhor the evils resulting from the liquor traffic, and inconsiderately assume that the closing of the saloons would lead to an early stoppage of those evils. But no person who has had opportunities to observe this matter in its broad aspect can believe that liquor consumption can be eradicated by any legislative process. The person who looks at the problem from a cosmopolitan standpoint sees that it is neither practicable or desirable to eliminate saloons, properly conducted, in a great city.
It directly countered the Express and its assertion that tourists preferred “dry” towns, instead claiming that “the average tourist . . . will avoid a town or city that arrogates the right to dictate to him” what he should eat or drink and that any such community “that assumes to prescribe, in medical fashion, what a tourist shall consume” was to be labeled “one to avoid.”
The editorial observed that “a great city cannot be run on the narrow track of a country village” and those visiting the Angel City “will not accept castiron rules of personal conduct” with these “more and more out of place” if Los Angeles was to continue its phenomenal growth. To become the great city that was its destiny, the metropolis “must be kept out of the narrow groove into which well-meaning but inconsiderate reformers would run it.” It ended with the exhortation:
Los Angeles is a broad-gauge, double-track, stone-ballasted city. Make it a “jay town”—a narrow-gauge, sage brush and cactus affair and instead of becoming the “greatest pleasure resort on earth” its farther terminus will be the desert.
As noted at the outset, we’ll return on 3 June to discuss the results of the election, so be sure to check back with us then…..