CHAPTER XXVIII
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC AND PROHIBITION

    The first federal regulations for the restriction of liquor selling to Indians were contained in the act of March 30, 1802, which provided "that the president of the United States be authorized to take such measures from time to time as to him may appear expedient to prevent or restrain the vending or distributing of spirituous liquors among all or any of the said Indian tribes."
    The intercourse act of 1834 provided very inadequate penalties to punish the introduction of ardent spirits among the Indians. As a result, largely, of the baneful effects of the almost unrestrained liquor traffic in the Indian country, as revealed in the reports of the government officials and missionaries and others, Congress in 1847 passed a law that added the punishment of imprisonment to the fine formerly imposed for introducing and selling intoxicating liquors in the Indian country. Even this measure was likely to prove ineffectual unless the whisky [whiskey] trade that flourished along the borders could be checked. Accordingly, it was sought to secure the co-operation of the neighboring states in restraining the border traffic, and to that end the secretary of war addressed a circular letter to the governors of those states, explaining the dangerous condition arising from the presence of the corrupt liquor vendors around the Indian Territory and asking that measures be taken to abolish such agencies of crime and depravity. He describes the situation thus: "The principal mischief is done by and through the dram shops and traders in ten article along the lines between the states and the Indian country. Indians cross the line and visit those shops, where they are permitted to indulge freely so long as they have the means of paying. They frequently awake to consciousness only to find that they have been plundered of their money, their rifles, their blankets and everything of value they brought with them, which they are told they have traded for whisky [whiskey], or gambled away while in a state of intoxication. Not satisfied with such opportunities of selling liquor to the poor Indian, the traders in it within the state lines send emissaries, who are generally corrupted Indians of both sexes, with it in such quantities as they can easily carry and conceal, who barter it away to the Indians. In all cases the Indian is wronged, cheated, robbed; and consequence is, the engendering of a feeling of unfriendliness if not of revenge against the white man for these great injuries. Whatever insecurity there may be for our frontier population, it is mainly if not entirely caused in this manner."
    Liquor traffic was carried on among the Indians so openly and to such a destructive extend during the early forties that every report from agents and superintendents notes the fearful results of the practice and calls for reform measures. Intemperance was recognized as the one great evil to which the tribes could trace their downfall. The agent for the Chickasaws re-[ported]

374

375

[re]ported the existence, in 1844, of a large distillery opposite the mouth of the Washita river. "The Indians frequently go there and bring in ten or twenty gallons at a time; some white persons have also been engaged in the business. They bring it in at night, and are never seen in the day. The places of deposit have frequently been found, and their whisky [whiskey] destroyed." The Chickasaw light horse, as the mounted native police of the country were known, had proved efficient in preventing much of this illicit traffic, destroying the whisky [whiskey] wherever it was found.
    The essential difference in the status of the two divisions of the Creek Nation was found by the agent to consist of the fact that the upper towns were less exposed to the influences of the liquor traffic than the lower towns. The agent's report for 1844 describes their condition as follows: "The upper Creeks, who reside in the vicinity of the Canadian, and who are principally composed of the emigrants of 1836 and 1837, are, generally speaking, in a better condition than the lower towns; their being located at a distance from the Arkansas from the settlement of the whites, and also being further removed from their speculative and more civilized neighbors, the Cherokees, causes the importation of whisky [whiskey] into their country to be a matter of more difficulty." Further, their domestic condition is reported: "They live in good hewed log houses, are excellent farmers, and generally more reflective and economical than their brethren of the lower towns; and their females are generally occupied in the domestic occupation of spinning and weaving cotton, of which article a great proportion of what they manufacture is for their own country production."
    The act of February 13, 1862, made it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell liquor to Indians that were under the care of a superintendent or agent, whether on or off the reservation. This legislation came many years after its necessity had first become apparent, and provided prohibition perhaps as far as could be obtained by legal document. The constitutionality of the act was affirmed in the United States supreme court in 1865. This remained the law until the revision of the law in 1873-74, when the restrictions were removed to the extent that the selling of liquor to Indians was not an offense off the reservation. But the act of February 27, 1877, restored the former provision, so that the vending of intoxicants to Indians whose relations still continued with the government was punishable by three hundred dollar's fine and two years' imprisonment. The growth of public sentiment on the subject of alcoholism was shown in the act of 1886 by which instruction on the nature of alcohol and its effects on the human body should be included in the curricula of all Indian schools controlled by the government.
    The history of the prohibition movement since the opening of Oklahoma, especially the issues and their outcome as a result of statehood, is given in the following quotations from an article by Rev. J. J. Thomson, secretary of the Oklahoma Anti-Saloon League.¹
    "More recently, the Dawes Commission negotiated various treaties with the Indians of the so-called five civilized tribes, making provision that white men might enter the territory. In each of the treaties the following pledge was given to the various tribes through the influence of Capt. A. S. McKennon, a member of the commission: 'The United States agrees to maintain strict

[Footnotes]
    ¹Published in Oklahoma Life, November, 1907.

376

laws in the territory of the said nation against the introduction, sale, barter or giving away of liquors and intoxicants of any kind or quality.'
    "When Oklahoma was originally opened on April 22, 1889, federal prohibition prevailed and continued to be enforced under military authority for about one year. On May 2, 1890, Congress organized the territory of Oklahoma. The laws of Nebraska were applied to Oklahoma with the distinct exception of the chapter which provided for the licensing of the liquor traffic. Notwithstanding that exception saloons were opened up in practically every city and village in Oklahoma within twenty-four hours after the law was enacted. Thus it will be seen that the saloon came into Oklahoma without any authority either from Congress or the territorial legislature. At its first session the legislature made regulations for the restriction and licensing of the liquor traffic which went into effect December 25, 1890.
    "In the year 1901 the Anti-Saloon League of Oklahoma was organized under the authority of National Superintendent Howard H. Russell, D. D., and Rev. H. E. Swan was made territorial superintendent. The work done by the league under his superintendency was quite successful in securing improvements of the laws regulating and restricting the liquor traffic, and in securing decisions by the courts to the advantage of the temperance cause. As early as 1903 a vigorous movement was begun looking to the securing of prohibition for the territory or for the state when Oklahoma should become a state. This movement took form in a convention held November 24, 1903, in Oklahoma City, where a large number of delegates were gathered representing each of the different denominations, the W. C. T. U. and other temperance organizations. Rev. Marion Porter was made president of that convention and the federation growing out of it. This was virtually the Anti-Saloon League on a larger basis, although not called by that name.
    "The movement grew until in July, 1904, a call was made from Rev. P. A. Baker, general superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of America, to come to Oklahoma and Indian Territory to inaugurate the definite movement for prohibition statehood. As a result of his visit, the Anti-Saloon League of Oklahoma was re-organized and myself, then assistant superintendent of the Toledo district of the Ohio Anti-Saloon League, was made territorial superintendent. Dr. Baker's visit at the same time resulted in the organization of the Indian Territory church federation for prohibition statehood at a convention held in the Baptist church of South McAlester, September 27-28, 1904. At this convention Rev. E. M. Sweet, Jr., of Muskogee, who had been the leader in the preparations for this convention, was made the secretary and head of the movement for Indian Territory, and Capt. A. S. McKennon the president. The two organizations started out with the one purpose of securing prohibition statehood whether there should be one state or two. Petitions were prepared and numerously signed asking Congress in giving statehood to Oklahoma and Indian Territory, whether in one or two states, to provide prohibition of the liquor traffic. These petitions were presented to Congress by Rev. E. C. Dinwiddie, legislative superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of America, assisted by Secretary Sweet, who regarded that since his federation was not yet fully identified with the national league it was necessary that he be in Washington to look after the interests of the Indian Territory on

377

his own account. Dr. Dinwiddie was able to bring to bear the influence of the Anit-Saloon League of all the states of the Union in favor of this plea on the ground that the people of ever state are interested in the keeping of good faith by the federal government with the Indians to whom these treaty pledges have been made. The result was that the Hamilton statehood bill, which had passed the house of representatives the winter before, was amended on February 7, 1905, in the senate by what was called the Gallilnger-Stone amendment providing for the prohibition of the liquor traffic in the entire state for a period of twenty-one years. The nation was surprised that this was possible, and especially that the senate should pass such a radical provision by the remarkable vote of fifty-two to seventeen, one more than three to one.
    "The liquor people of Oklahoma and many business men not directly connected with the liquor traffic, but who imagined the liquor business was necessary to business prosperity, were thrown into consternation. Plans were immediately formed for a great statehood convention of a thousand delegates to be held in Oklahoma City in July, at which it was confidently believed by the promoters that the representative citizens and business men of the two territories would declare, not only for immediate joint statehood of the two territories, but also for no prohibition, and steps were taken to secure the sending of only anti-prohibitionists to that convention. This plan, however, was defeated, for so great a number of prohibitionists were included among the thousand delegates that they succeeded in preventing a word being said against prohibition. Indeed the permanent chairman of that convention was an avowed state-wide prohibitionist.
    "During the summer the Sequoyah convention met in Muskogee to prepare a constitution for that proposed state. Hon. A. S. McKennon of McAlester was made chairman of the committee on prohibition and drafted a provision for perpetual prohibition which was unanimously adopted by the convention. This provision of the Sequoyah constitution had a great deal of weight in determining the final settlement of the prohibition question for the new state.
    "After the failure of the Oklahoma City convention to do anything against prohibition another effort along the same line was made in taking a large delegation to Washington, D. C. On December 6th, one hundred and thirty-eight people went on a special train from the two territories to Washington to urge immediate joint statehood. Secretly the purpose of this delegation was, in part at least, to protest against prohibition for the state. On the other hand a few of the delegation went on purpose to work for prohibition. Among these the most prominent were Rev. T. H. Harper, Rev. C. B. Larrabee, and Rev. H. L. Cloud, Superintendent Dinwiddie and Secretary Sweet were already in Washington. In spite of the opposition the prohibitionists secured a hearing before the house committee on territories. This was done through members of that committee who were favorable to the cause and who heard from their constituency at home with requests for such hearing. Two of the committee, Hon. James McKinney of Illinois and Hon. Ralph D. Cole of Findley, Ohio, assisted very materially in securing the hearings. Eleven speakers were heard on each side and in the end the advantage was so evidently with the prohibitionists that it seemed unnecessary that the vote of the committee should be taken. Chairman

378

Hamilton asked Superintendent Dinwiddie to prepare the prohibition provision which he would like to have incorporated in the statehood bill, and it was so incorporated. This great victory was due largely to the influence of the Anti-Saloon League of America through its Washington representative, E. C. Dinwiddie. Of him the chairman of the 'statehood boomers,' as the delegation that went to Washington was called, said, 'That man Dinwiddie is the slickest man I ever went up against. He is as smooth as oil.'
    "The provision was for absolute prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in that part of the new state comprising the Indian Territory, the Osage Nation and the Indian reservations of Oklahoma, for a period of twenty-one years from the admission of the state into the Union and thereafter until the people of the state by amendment of the constitution shall otherwise determine.
    "This notable victory having been secured and the enabling act having been passed with this provision included, prohibitionists next directed their attention to the election of delegates to the constitutional convention which was to meet in Guthrie, November 20, 1906. The various counties and convention districts were organized; party nominations were jealously watched and carefully controlled wherever possible, and in the election that followed the influence of the league was thrown in favor of candidates who favored prohibition without respect to their party affiliation. When the campaign was over and the delegates elected, the anti-prohibitionists freely claimed that prohibition was defeated. But when the convention met and the prohibitionists organized the convention and elected William H. Murray president, they began to revise their estimate of their own strength. The committee on liquor traffic appointed by the president with Hon. Luke Roberts as chairman, was made up of nine prohibitionists and six supposed anti-prohibitionists. The Anti-Saloon League established headquarters in Guthrie and carried on a vigorous lobby under the direction of Superintendent Dinwiddie, assisted by all of the league force, including Rev. E. M. Sweet.
    "When the committee on liquor traffic reported, the majority report was signed by ten of fifteen members and was for a constitutional provision to be inserted in the body of the constitution as an integral part thereof, which would provide for a vote by the people of Oklahoma territory on the question of extending prohibition as provided for Indian Territory to the remainder of the state. The minority report provided for prohibition in the country and high license with local option for the cities, but was so drawn that it would practically force the saloon out of the cities of the state permanently. As a substitute for both majority reports Hon. R. L. Williams of Durant proposed straight-out constitutional prohibition for the whole state with certain omissions from the language of the enabling act. Then Hon. D. S. Rose of Blackwell proposed an amendment submitting this statewide prohibition to a state-wide vote. This seemed to be favored by very many and with certain modifications to the Rose amendment and the Williams substitute it was acceptable to almost every one of the prohibition force. Strange to say, the opponents of prohibition voted almost solidly for both of these propositions, possibly thinking that in so doing they were defeating the prohibitionists. But the slight amendment asked for were readily agreed to without a vote and then the whole prop-[osition]

379

[prop]osition was very acceptable. The Rose amendment was adopted by a vote of eighty-nine to fifteen and the Williams substitute as thus amended was adopted by a vote of ninety-three to six. Then came the real test vote. Recognizing that they had walked into a trap and been successfully caught, some of our opponents proposed and pressed for an amendment which would give to any Oklahoma county the right to set aside and practically nullify state-wide prohibition by vote of the county when called for by a petition signed by twenty per cent of the taxpayers of the county. Two very prominent members of the convention declared in the debate that this proposition was really intended to rob the prohibitionists of the victory they had already secured in the convention and the victory they certainly would secure in the vote of the people, and stated that they were against the proposition on account of this unfairness. The amendment was lost by an overwhelming vote of twenty-four members voting 'aye' and seventy-one voting 'no.' The prohibition victory in the convention, therefore was complete.
    "In the Democratic primaries for the nomination of state and county officers the Anti-Saloon League felt impelled to take a part, even though it was recognized that it would be seriously misunderstood. It was considered essential to the cause of prohibition that the first governor of the new state should be in sympathy with that policy. Therefore, when it became apparent that one candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor was an avowed friend of the saloon, another definitely opposed to prohibition and in favor of local option, while a third was completely committed to state-wide prohibition as submitted to the people, the league could do no other than to 'get into the game.' The tremendous popularity of Mr. Cruce, his sterling integrity and unblemished moral character, made him a difficult candidate to oppose. But the question of prohibition was paramount and the league's tremendous influence was displayed in the triumphant nomination of Hon. Charles N. Haskell for governor.
    "After the nominations were made and the campaign came on for the election, the league kept free from party alliance as far as possible. Each candidate for governor declared that prohibition if adopted, would be enforceable and would be enforced if he were elected governor. The league was busy enough in handling the campaign for state-wide prohibition. Every county was organized and every city, village and rural community was reached by hosts of speakers and a flood of literature. Every county committee had its own list of speakers and the state office handled forty other speakers who covered the whole state. About ten million pages of literature were printed and distributed from state headquarters. The last six weeks of the campaign proved to be a great whirlwind in favor of prohibition. Business men and politicians became thoroughly interested and enthusiastic advocates of saloon suppression. The liquor men became so domineering and arrogant in their supposed control of the political situation that large numbers of people who were not prohibitionists from principle and not 'teetotalers' in practice enlisted warmly in the effort to carry prohibition in the new state. Some keen observers of the situation declared that the liquor men by their bulldozing methods were making more votes for prohibition than the Anti-Saloon League.
    "An enormous amount of money was expended, most of it in a secret way, by the liquor interests of Oklahoma and of the

380

nation. A so-called citizens' league was maintained in Guthrie and a flood of literature was sent out to all parts of the state. A few papers here and there published their literature at paid advertising rates, but a large majority of the daily and weekly papers refused to print their material under any circumstances. It became evident long before the vote was taken that prohibition was a sure winner. The result was an overwhelming victory for prohibition. At first it seemed that the majority must reach thirty thousand, but it failed to do so because the Indian Territory vote did not come up to the earlier expectations. Thousands of votes that were actually cast had to be thrown out because of irregularity. And so the majority instead of being about twenty thousand as the votes actually cast would probably have been, as counted and canvassed was 18,103. The total votes for prohibition was 130,361, against 112,258. Seventeen counties voted wet out of the seventy-five, Oklahoma, Logan and Osage on the Oklahoma side and fourteen on the Indian Territory side. The majority on the Oklahoma side for prohibition was 14,412, and on the Indian Territory side 3,691.
    "It had been supposed by many that Indian Territory would vote prohibition upon Oklahoma. But not so. The Oklahoma majority was many times larger than that in Indian Territory. It had been supposed also by many that the country would vote prohibition on the cities. But instead of that the cities almost all gave majorities for prohibition or gave majorities against so small that the effect was virtually the same."