“Something Should Be Done to Head Off These Fanatics Who Would Keep Our City in a Turmoil All the Time”: A Postcard by Michael Rieder on the Angel City Anti-Saloon Election of Spring 1905, Part Two

by Paul R. Spitzzeri

We recently offered the first part of this post, featuring a postcard in the Museum’s collection by Michael Rieder that was a commentary on an upcoming Los Angeles city election to ban saloons, part of a determined drive by temperance advocates led by the Rev. Ervin S. Chapman, a Presbyterian minister. Part of a national movement stretching back decades, the anti-saloon forces in Los Angeles claimed that tourism and business would improve if the ordinance passed, while making the age-old arguments that doing so would also help families affected by alcoholism, principally among males, and the general moral order and tenor in the Angel City.

Opposed were those directly involved in the alcohol trade, including grape growers, winemakers, brewers, importers and merchandisers and the broader business community, which argued the economic effects, but also claimed that they were motivated by concerns of freedom and liberty. The campaign was so bitter that some on both sides of the issue called for a more peaceful and rational discourse, rather than recourse to bitter and personal recriminations.

When the election was held on 2 June, the result was decisive as almost two thirds of the electorate voted no, the totals being almost 15,500 against and only about 8,350 for the anti-saloon measure. None of the nine wards in the city had a majority that supported the prohibition, with a few polling as high as about 43% for it and the 8th ward only finding 9% willing to back it, while the 7th mustered about a quarter of the voters supporting the measure.

With a headline of “‘DRYS’ WIN MONEY ON SALOON VOTE,'” the Los Angeles Record of the following day observed that the betting public was more focused on how much the margin of difference would be rather than whether there was a chance the ordinance would pass. One observer remarked, “evidently those who voted against the ordinance went in pairs. The man who stood for the ordinance went alone.”

It is important, of course, to note that it was another half-dozen years before women could vote in California elections, local, county or state, and there seems little doubt that the anti-saloon measure would have been much closer, or, possibly, the other outcome if the female populace could have cast ballots. The paper added that the only win supporters could take was that there was apparently a majority of bettors who thought the outcome would be greater than 2 to 1.

The Record remarked,

In searching for influences, the most open explanation is that the people did not think well of the ordinance. It was the first use of the initiative of the [city] charter and technically at least differed from any temperance election ever held in the United States. In other states and other places prohibition and local option would have been voted upon. The vote Friday was upon a law, advocated and presented under the initiative.

The commentary continued that “the forces under Dr. Chapman displayed little political acumen, lacked political guidance, and fell down on every move that might have increased their vote.” Yet, it was added that the pro-saloon contingent had “perhaps a trifle over-assurance in the meaning of the vote,” as it was added that “it is possible . . . that in casting his vote the citizen intended or gave NO LICENSE TO THE SALOON TO OVER-STEP THE BOUNDS.”

Despite the 30-point margin, the Anti-Saloon League insisted it would return with a new campaign, though the charter would not allow this for at least a half year and there were many who advised against it given the decisive results. At the same time, said the Record, “in other quarters there is an earnest demand for a very high license” fee to be charged to saloons, though there were opinions that the increase might be from $15 to $25 monthly.

The analysis concluded that,

The police commission becomes the real center of interest. It is conceded that there are some saloons and some conditions surrounding saloons that assisted the ordinance. It is probable that the larger number of saloonkeepers would welcome some rigid discipline for a time at least, that would stop agitation against their industry.

The Los Angeles Herald called the canvass “one of the hottest fought elections ever witnessed in Los Angeles” and it was remarked that “an exceedingly large number of voters were challenged by the anti-saloon workers,” though only a handful of votes were tossed out. At one precinct, the stamps that were to be used in marking ballots did not arrive, so lead pencils were substituted and, after some conflict, it was decided to admit these ballots.

A trio of photographs were published, one showing boys mingling with men in front of a polling place, while another was captioned “WAITING FOR VICTIMS IN FRONT OF A POLLING PLACE,” which seemed to suggest that anti-saloon forces were trying to influence the voting there, and the last showed police officers present as women supporting the measure were gathered. There were, however, no reports of problems. While the nine wards all had substantial majorities against the effort, it was added that, of 108 precincts, only eight had more than 50% support for it.

Heavy interest in the issue was interpreted by the fact that a majority of votes were cast prior to Noon—they opened at 6 a.m. and closed at 5 p.m.— and, two hours before that, those opposed to the ordinance were already claiming victory. The pro-measure activists displayed “alacrity and quiet determination,” while their counterparts employed “a highly developed system, in which the management [presumably of saloons] knew at every moment of the day exactly how the vote was being polled” and making sure they had voters turning out in opposition.

Moreover, while women pressing for approval of the measure were at several precincts in some force, the paper recorded that both sides hired vehicles of various kinds, including automobiles, which appeared in the city within the last several years, to convey voters to polling places, even as the “anti-prohibitionists” were considered more organized. In one instance, near San Pedro and 3rd streets, a pair of carriages collided while so engaged.

Notably, the Herald observed that “the campaign just closed is recognized as the greatest fight which Prohibition has ever waged on the Pacific coast” and added “hundreds of meetings have been held and bands paraded the streets in an effort to advance to no-saloon cause. A business figure and opponent of the measure told the paper, “it is hoped that the prohibitionists will seek some other field for their further efforts and will be content to let the the growth and development of Los Angeles continue.” He continued that, despite claims from the other side that a loss could only result from fraud (notable words for our time), the result reflected “the sound judgement and good common sense of the voter” rather than “abuse and misrepresentation.”

The piece ended with,

The most amusing feature of the day was the manner in which some of the enthusiastic anti-prohibitionists celebrated the victory last night. About two dozen men appeared on the streets shortly after 8 o’clock, all carrying umbrellas. The jolly crowd marched two and two down the sidewalk with their umbrellas over their heads to keep the “wet” off.

The Los Angeles Express remarked upon the “Saloon Men’s Canvass” in which a group opposed to the measure was “armed with unlimited funds and having the support of several strong organizations” was able to “secure the names of every man who was qualified to vote” and “every house was visited, not once, but several times.” Additionally, “day after day citizens were bombarded with literature unfriendly to the ordinance,” while it sent 500 horse-drawn conveyances and half that number of autos “every one of the thousands of voters who had been won to the negative side of the question.” Saloon representatives were also said to be ubiquitous in pushing for a no vote.

As to the prohibition supporters, they “had the co-operation of ministers and leaders of 100 evangelical churches in arousing sentiment and enthusiasm” beyond literature and meetings and, while there were plenty of those involved, “the campaign lacked the organization of the paid forces on the other side.” Vehicles hired to ferry voters to polling places were fewer in number and in some precincts none were to be found, but the paper, a supporter of the ordinance, asserted that they “fought the big machine opposing them as best they could.”

The Los Angeles Times, while noting the decisive outcome, declared that “an unmistakable sentiment was voiced” by opponents of the measure “for high license [fees] and for the strictest kind of police regulation of the liquor business.” When Chapman, however, immediately called for a renewed push to take the matter to the voters again at the earliest opportunity, “a loud protest was made against the proposal” given “the great cost to the taxpayers, the upsetting of business, the stirring of bitter animosities, and the harm that comes with such a period of unrest and uncertainty as that through which the city has just passed.”

Several Angeleno business figures were quoted as to the aforementioned views on license fees and tighter regulation and policing. The owner of the Ville de Paris store and French consul, Auguste Fusenot, called for higher license fees “to weed out and suppress the most objectionable saloons.” Albert C. Bilicke, who operated the Hollenbeck Hotel and soon to complete the Hotel Alexandria, the most luxurious in town to date, lamented the deleterious effect the campaign had on business and real estate and echoed the call for more control over liquor sales.

Realtor Edward D. Silent was very vocal in bluntly recommending, “Dr. Chapman better drop this matter of further agitation right here” and the view of those wanting more regulation, was deemed to be “of the sane, sound people who have the best interests of the city at heart.” Walter S. Maxwell was direct, as well, opining that,

Something should be done to head off those fanatics who would keep our city in a turmoil all the time. They have had an emphatic expression of opinion; let them be satisfied to permit the majority to conduct its affairs in its own way.

Railroad official Ferd K. Rule also minced no words when he intoned, “it is an outrage, though, for these radicals to talk already of renewing the agitation” because “the people have expressed themselves in a way that cannot be misinterpreted.” Ezra T. Stimson went so far as to suggest that Chapman should be banned from resubmitting the measure and that “someone should buy him a ticket out of town.” Another interviewee declared “the prohibition movement for Los Angeles must be dead—thoroughly dead—now,” while another man insisted that Chapman be forced to pay for any future elections he instigated.

The long-time physician, Dr. Joseph Kurtz fired off “a sputter of indignation” when told of Chapman’s post-election intentions, including:

It would be trying to rob the city! It would be criminal! Dr. Chapman gets up the elections and we taxpayers have to foot the bills. He don’t pay any taxes here and never did. If the taxpayers have to pay for the elections why not let them, and not Dr. Chapman, call for elections? Don’t he know when the voters say no? Have it over! Foolish! Silly! Criminal!

Elsewhere, the Times, which was against “the impossible dream of prohibition” though for higher license fees and more policing, thought it fit to introduce a racial element to the election, referring to “the unwashed cholo contingent” of voters who, it claimed, “stood around dumbly waiting to be shown what to do and where to do it” having just finished breakfast. The paper then added, “to the initiated this is enough description: garlic!” and stated that “the cholos had to stand directly face to face to the women” favoring the ordinance “to vote.” With the purported contamination of the air from the garlic, the ladies were forced, the Times told readers, to beat a hasty retreat.

Never willing to pass up an opportunity to score Edwin T. Earl of the rival Express, the paper claimed to witness “one of the most ridiculous incidents of the day” in which “he started out for his day’s voting with the rancor of a man who realizes he has made a chump of himself—and lost.” To wit, at his precinct, the paper asserted, Earl “fell in with a negro who was about to vote against the ordinance,” and “in his anguish, Earl fell to and tried to convince him” of the error of his ways. It was stated that the Black voter had the same reaction to everyone who read the arguments for the initiative in the Express, “he grinned,” though as the publisher kept arguing, “the negro got mad at Earl’s bulldozing insistency,” leading him to quickly decamp—the Times was sure to record that “Earl’s precinct voted heavily against him.”

Interestingly, the Times told its readers that the liquor and saloon interests “agreed to keep hands off and obey orders” from the leading business figures who led the anti-prohibition forces” and then “kept their word . . . by voting and promptly fading away until the polls closed.” The paper discounted a couple of anecdotes by ordinance supporters that they were denied the opportunity to vote, one of these said to be “a bleary-eyed bum.”

In an editorial titled “VERDICT OF THE PEOPLE,” the Express opined,

The saloon was evil yesterday; it is evil today, and will be evil so long as it may exist . . . By a vote of almost two to one the people have decided that the saloon—an admitted evil—may continue to exist in Los Angeles. The Express bows to the will of the people, but believes a stupendous mistake was made by them at the polls.

The paper continued that the voters failed to vote for good government and allowed saloons to continue to be “a clog upon the wheels of progress.” While it asserted that closing the taverns would mean greater prosperity for the Angel City, the Express allowed that growth would yet continued because “no city in the land has greater natural advantages, more charms for the home builder, or more attractions for the visitor or permanent resident.” This simply meant, it went on, that “nothing—not even the saloons—can stop its onward march to greatness.”

Moreover, the paper claimed to respect the vote of “that large number of intelligent and honest men” who “acted from conscientious motives and according to their best judgment” but it all but insisted that they were hoodwinked by the liquor interests and “did not see the truth as it really existed.” So, many of those who cast ballots against the ordinance “were honest and conscientious, but mistaken.” If only they could know the reality as the Express did and the paper even tried to link temperance to slavery as it averred that “when the people of Los Angeles come to a full realization of the baneful effects of this monstrous evil they will sweep it from the city.”

So, the paper called for the city to impose license fees of no less than $3,000 annually, a huge sum, but which, it went on, “will close certain low and vile places that heretofore have been the haunts of the vicious and criminal classes.” It cautioned, however, that even such prohibitively costly fees “will not reduce the consumption of liquor or stop the making of drunkards.” When the people were ready, it closed, “they will find a staunch supporter and advocate in The Express, which has been, is now, and ever will be the uncompromising enemy of the liquor traffic.”

The Herald had two editorials, one titled “LET US HAVE PEACE,” and commented that, while there were “some indiscretions on the part of leaders representing each side,” the campaign, in general, was such that “the great mass of the people of Los Angeles maintained cool tempers.” It maintained that there would be “renewed activity and greater evidence of prosperity” as well as general cooperation “for the greatness and glory of Los Angeles.” It implored residents to work for improvement “in every moral and social sense” not just beautification, while, whatever harms were inflicted by the heat of the moment in the prohibition battle, that would pass, so it concluded,

Let us now buckle down afresh to the work of making Los Angeles greater, better and more glorious.

In “LOS ANGELES STILL SANE,” the Herald congratulated itself on “the intimate touch” it maintained “with the great mass of the thoughtful citizens of Los Angeles” because it predicted the outcome of the election. It reminded readers that its position was that the result would be “emphatic, decisive, overwhelming” because “the considerate voters of Los Angeles would put the seal of their disapproval on that movement.”

The paper insisted the outcome was obvious “because the only question was whether Los Angeles still remained sane” and the answer was that there was no way “the community had gone crazy.” The “zealous workers of the no-saloon cause” were asked whether it would not have been better if another path had been taken:

Suppose that all of these workers and all that money had been employed in temperance work on the plan of the Good Samaritan—the plan on which the whole ministry of Christ was based. Would not there be today hundreds of Los Angeles men reclaimed from the drinking habit? . . .

Then why not turn from the contest ended yesterday—temperance men of all classes—and work shoulder to shoulder in an effort to reduce the liquor evil in Los Angeles to the minimum by practical and possible efforts?

“Let every man close his own saloon, which is midway between his chin and his nose.”

As definitive as the lopsided result of the election may have been, Chapman and others in the temperance movement certainly did not stop in their advocacy to rid the Angel City of the saloon, including a successful 1917 ordinance passage that was soon obviated by the passage of the 19th Amendment, though the “great social and economic experiment,” as described by President Herbert Hoover, was repealed in 1933. The fundamental question of legislating behavior is one that runs throughout American history in a variety of ways and temperance was certainly among the most persistent such queries in our experience.