(Summer-Autumn 2010) [Prohibition]

Transcription

Volume 3, Numbers 2-3
Stanislaus
Historical
Quarterly
Summer-Autumn 2010
Double Issue
Stanislaus County
Founded 1854
An Independent Publication of Stanislaus County History
PROHIBITION IN STANISLAUS COUNTY
PROHIBITION PICTURE GALLERY
Typical 5-gallon Cans Used to Transport
Moonshine
Web Photo
Prescription for Medicinal Whiskey, September 3,
1929
Web Photo
Confiscated Liquor Still of Significant Proportions
Vats That Contain Mash for Fermentation
Web Photo
Simple Crude Liquor Still Found during a Raid in
Stanislaus County
Web Photo
An Early Confiscation of a Liquor Still
Web Photo
This issue is dedicated to Arlene Glidewell, who has faithfully read this writer’s work in Stanislaus Stepping Stones
and SHQ, being an ethusiast of local history. Many thanks!
Web Photo
Front cover photos are selections from across the nation,
representative of possible scenarios in California and
Stanislaus County.
Web Photos
———————— 186 ————————
Part 1A - Temperance and Prohibition in American History
What about the Taverns, Saloons, and Bootleggers?
Governmental Control of Alcoholic Beverage Usage
Colonial Period
Governmental control of the excessive usage of alcoholic
beverages, in what would be the United States, began early in the
American colonies. In 1629, Virginia colony’s assembly ruled that
“Ministers shall not give themselves to excess in drinking, or riot,
or spending their time idly day or night.” It is a curious ordinance,
singling out clergy, but nonetheless, there was early concern about
the drinking problem. In Plymouth colony in 1633, two pence was
the limit for anyone purchasing alcohol at a public tavern. A little
later, there was local law in the Massachusetts colony, requesting
tavern patrons not to remain at public drinking houses longer than
necessary.
By 1700, alcoholic beverages in the colonies were being taxed, with
taverns paying license fees. Many of the American colonies had
local ordinances that prohibited drunkenness. Repulsive public
behavior of an inebriated colonist could result in a fine, jail, pillory
punishment, or the wearing of
a sign with a large “D,”
signifying a “Drunkard.” At
this time, distilled alcoholic
beverages, commonly known
as “hard liquor,” or “spirits,”
was emerging as another
choice for imbibers, but its
excessive alcoholic content
resulted in indulgers becoming
serious problems to families,
communities, and themselves.
Unlike beer or wine that had 5
to 20 percent alcohol, distilled
liquor contained 40 to 80
percent or 80 to 160 proof.
(“Proof” is a standard
measurement of the strength of
Sentence for Drunkenness in
hard liquor. The proof number
Colonial Times Web Picture
is usually double the percent
of alcohol in the beverage.) The first distillery in the colonies was
operating in 1640, being located in New Amsterdam, now New York
City. By the end of the century, distillation of grains and molasses
was popular, resulting in widespread usage and drunkenness,
especially from the consumption of gin and rum. Renowned colonial
theologian Increase Mather stated, “Wine is from God,” but “The
drunkard is from the devil,” from which the expression “demon
rum” was coined.
In 1736, the British Parliament passed the Gin Act to curb the
destruction of “thousands of His Majesty’s subjects,” who were
rendered “unfit for labor, debauched in morals and drawn into all
kinds of wickedness,” because of gin. In his Almanack of 1752,
Nathaniel Ames addressed the excessive use of rum, noting that
workers who drank the distilled sugary liquid became “idle, inactive,
and sedentary,” with death found “in the bottom of the cup for
everyone.”
In 1733, the colony of Georgia issued the first alcoholic prohibitory
statute in the colonies, disallowing the importation of distilled
alcohol, namely rum and brandy, into its territory. Smuggling,
hijacking, bootlegging, and early forms of speakeasies cropped up,
because the prohibitory statute was not popular and difficult to
enforce, which were the exact results two centuries later with U.S.
prohibition. In 1735, Georgia’s partial dry law was repealed, with
taverns and tippling houses now required to pay for business
licenses.
Young United States
In 1760, a young John Adams complained that voters were being
bought for the price of rum or flip, the latter being a popular mixed
alcoholic drink containing raw eggs. Well-known colonial physician
Dr. Benjamin Rush published a treatise concerning the effects of
alcohol on human beings, noting that excessive use resulted in
“unusual garrulity, unusual silence, captiousness, insipid simpering,
profane swearing, certain immodest actions, certain extravagant
acts, which indicate a temporary fit of madness.”
In 1791, the infant American government instituted the Revenue
Act that had provisions for taxing distilled liquor and charging
license fees to distillers. This intrusion by government incensed
American farmers, resulting in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. It
was quelled by a militia of 15,000 sent by President Washington.
Clandestine distilling, commonly known as “making moonshine,”
would remain a common practice for many Americans throughout
U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson criticized the drinking of whiskey,
urging instead the imbibing of the healthier beverages of beer and
wine. Being an experimenting agriculturalist, Jefferson developed
various wine grapes, grains, and yeasts on his plantation, so he
could dabble in the creation of many types of fermented beverages.
In 1840, Charles Jewett wrote a verse about an alcoholic father:
“Shoeless over frozen ground his wretched children go, and away
he staggers to where the sound of drunken revel is ringing round,
to taste his cup of woe.
Saloons
Christian denominations, namely Presbyterian, Methodist,
Universalist, Baptist, and Friends, led the campaign against liquor
and saloons. Decent community citizens were commonly repulsed
by the saloon, because of its unruly atmosphere, its attraction of
the criminal element, and the seediness of inebriated patrons
———————— 187 ————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly —————————————
roaming the streets, reclining in public environs in a drunken stupor.
Not only were women, children, and respectable men wary of the
saloon’s presence, businessmen became concerned about their
settlement’s reputation in regard to attracting commerce, new
families, and new businesses. The desire was to have a “cleaned
up” town that would provide the base for a thriving, progressive
community. In the campaign against saloons and alcohol abuse,
the commonly considered “tame” alcoholic beverages of beer and
wine became lumped with whiskey and other distilled liquor as
major problems in settlements. This aggravation gave rise to the
temperance movement, being founded by religious men and women,
who demanded decency in their surroundings.
There were different types of saloons, from seedy taverns to posh
taprooms, where gentlemen gathered to unwind and converse. Jack
Summer- Autumn 2010
American dinner table. Sensible drinking of beer and wine was not
thought to be intoxicating, only if used excessively. Consuming
alcohol had become an American custom, but it too was a societal
burden, which gave rise to the temperance movement.
Decent Americans and churches formed temperance groups, with
the first being the American Temperance Society, formed in 1826
and later named the American Temperance Union, having 8,000
local chapters by 1835. It was followed by the Sons of Temperance
in 1842. In 1843, Oregon Territory joined the temperance movement,
enacting the first prohibition law on U.S. land that lasted just five
years before being repealed. At this time, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that states could regulate the use of alcohol through statutes.
Maine became the first state in 1847 to enact a prohibition statute,
being followed shortly by Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Rhode Island. These prohibition laws were not in effect long, being
repealed by later legislatures or declared invalid by state supreme
courts.
State prohibition laws were difficult to write, primarily because of
varying views on what percentage of alcohol causes intoxication.
Once that was settled and the laws written and enacted, they were
continuously challenged, because the public had varying views
too on intoxicating alcohol. It was a matter of individual morality
and that makes statutory prohibition impossible to enforce. Liquor
consumption can be controlled by regulatory laws, but prohibition
that eliminates common alcoholic beverages doesn’t work in a
democratic society, just too many differing opinions.
Commoners’ Tavern in the Infant U.S.
Web Photo
London wrote, “It is where men come together to exchange ideas,
to laugh and boast and dare, to relax, to forget the dull toil of
tiresome nights and days.” Saloon drinking was a custom in America,
a societal norm, but it was also a forum for debauchery, where
public and private moralities deteriorated. Men spat on floors,
planned devious schemes, gambled away their earnings, a place for
thieves and pimps, and where the criminal element gathered to coax
money from the drunk, money that would have provided food,
clothing, and shelter for his wife and family. It was a place where
drunken arguments and fights were spawned that sometimes
emanated into serious injury or death.
Many saloon owners were a force in local politics, because they
needed influence to keep their enterprises opened. Politicians and
local enforcement officials many times were bought to ignore
problems caused by saloons and to enact local ordinances favorable
to the saloon crowd. Often saloons and their proprietors were at
the root of a town’s corruption.
Temperance Movment
Historically, most Americans felt that beer and wine had a place in
society, while hard liquor was questionable. Early temperance groups
served wine at their meetings, and wine was commonly found at the
The vast majority of the nation’s citizens wanted controls on
intoxicating alcoholic beverages, their manufacturers and retailers.
Americans wanted alcoholic issues resolved, while maintaining
traditional alcohol-consuming freedoms and customs. The legal
problems that arose were dilemmas like the degree of control, the
beverages to include, the alcohol content, and the types of enforcing
agencies. Local prohibition laws varied widely in their stringency.
It depended upon who wrote the law and their intent. Many times,
prohibition statutes were too rigid, causing enormous difficulties
in their enforcement. There were disputes between businessmen
and civic leaders over liquor taxation, licensing fees, and location
of retail liquor establishments. From 1850 until the end of the
century, the issues concerning intoxicating alcohol grew, causing
the temperance movement to strengthen its campaigns and broaden
its membership.
National Temperance Organizations
The term “teetotaler,” which denotes someone who abstains totally
from alcohol usage, originated from the membership list of the
American Temperance Society. Those on the list, who were “total”
abstainers, had a “T” placed next to their name, becoming known
as “teetotalers.” Society members were mostly Christian women,
who were determined to end liquor usage, which they considered a
sin and a scourge to family and community.
During the Civil War, the Union imposed a hefty tax on hard liquor
———————— 188 ————————
Summer- Autumn 2010
and beer to help meet war expenses. Tax rose from 20¢ a gallon to state would be subject to that state’s laws, but the statute lacked
$2, causing the stockpiling of liquor, waiting for the tax to drop, enforcement measures. Similar legislation was enacted in 1913,
which it did in 1869 to 50¢ a gallon. In 1874, the Women’s Christian known as the Webb-Kenyon Act, but it too was weak in
Temperance Union (WCTU) was formed, with Francis E. Willard enforcement. These national laws were important though in that
serving as secretary of the national organization. The WCTU was they recognized the rights of states and local communities to have
committed to national temperance and saloon elimination, while prohibition laws.
promoting women’s rights as well. The preamble of the
organization’s constitution propounded: “The woman is and always At this time, “reform” was the watchword of the day, championed
has been the greatest sufferer from this vice [alcohol], which invades by the Progressive Movement. Advocates of reform wanted
her home and destroys her loved ones.”
changes in nearly all aspects of American
Local chapters were formed throughout
society, from government to working
the nation, having programs to educate
conditions, from natural resources to
the public, particularly children, about
monopolies. They wanted laws that
the problems of alcohol. American
protected American citizens from abusive
students read the “McGuffey readers,”
practices and promoted socialistic programs
which denounced liquor abuse and
to help workers, the needy, and the
saloons. By 1902, every state, except
destitute. This movement spurred the
Arizona, had curriculum that taught
temperance battle and the women’s rights
temperance. Local WCTU chapters had
movement to loftier levels.
children programs educating youth
about the dangers of alcohol, where
Christian temperance advocates believed
children sang songs praising
their struggle was a holy war, one where
temperance and pledging to abstain from
God would deliver the country from “evil
alcohol. It was a practice for the WCTU
liquor.” In 1908, Rev. Charles F. Aked wrote
to remain outside of politics, wanting to
in Appleton’s Magazine: “We are spending
appeal to all Americans regardless of
our lives, many of us, in the effort to make
their ideology.
the
world a little better and brighter for
WCTU Members Campaigning for State Dry
those
that shall come after us. We want to
Law
Web Photo
The National Prohibition Party was
open our life and liberty to all the sons of
formed in 1869 at the convention of the Order of Good Templars men. We want to make possible for all of life in the whole to be good
and three years later provided candidates for the national election. and beautiful, [but] the common sale of intoxicating liquor renders
Jack Black was its first presidential candidate, who received just our work a thousand times more difficult.”
5,607 votes nationwide, but twenty years later, in 1892, the party’s
presidential candidate, John Dedwell, garnered 270,710 votes, which Some called the WCTU, “the Protestant church in action,” with it
was the peak of the party’s popularity. In 1895, another powerful being linked directly to Protestant congregations throughout the
temperance organization was founded, the Anti-Saloon League, nation. Rev. Francis Ascott McBride characterized the Anti-Saloon
which had as its goal the elimination of the saloon from the American League as being “born of God.” Contrarily, Episcopal and Lutheran
scene. Unlike the WCTU, the league did use power politics to churches didn’t support the league, while Catholics and Jews
strengthen its cause. Wet politicians called the league “the most ignored temperance altogether, because they used sacramental wine
dangerous political movement that this country has ever known.” and their ethnicities drank wine traditionally.
It used statistics in its campaign messages, e.g., criticizing the saloon
“for annually sending thousands of our youths to destruction, for
Industrialists and Unions
corrupting politics, dissipating workmen’s wages, leading astray Wealthy industrialists contributed heavily to the anti-saloon and
60,000 girls each year into lives of immorality, and banishing children temperance cause, because alcohol usage reduced workers’
from school. Liquor is responsible for 19 percent of the divorces, 25 productivity, increased accidents and absenteeism, and caused
percent of the poverty, 25 percent of the insanity, 37 percent of the discontent and disruptiveness in the work place. Union locals
pauperism, 45 percent of child desertion, and 50 percent of the tended to congregate at saloons, discussing labor issues and
crime in the county. And this is a very conservative estimate.” The tactics, becoming at times serious hotbeds of dissent. However,
source of these statistics was not given.
most union leaders were wary of saloons and the drinking problem,
not wanting their members to drink away their wages or become
U.S. senators and congressmen were careful not to infringe on deficient employees, especially in skilled occupations, which would
state and local prohibition laws, because it was generally felt that reflect badly on the union. A number of unions had statements in
alcoholic beverage control was a state and local jurisdiction. Federal their bylaws endorsing temperance. Some of those unions were:
legislators did feel though that interstate commerce in regard to Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers; Grand
transporting alcohol from one state to another was a federal International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; International
dominion. In 1890, U.S. Congress passed the Wilson Original Association of Machinists; International Brotherhood of
Packages Act, in which any intoxicating liquor transported into a Maintenance-of-Way Employees; Brotherhood of Railroad
———————— 189 ————————
Trainman; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Stablemen and Helpers. No union benefits were dispensed to
members if abusive alcoholic consumption was involved. The Grand
International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers stated publicly
that “This organization is on record as favoring state and nationwide
prohibition. Our bylaws also forbid members from using intoxicating
liquor as a beverage, either on or off duty.”
The American Socialist Party supported temperance, wanting
workers to be strong and effective in the fight for better working
conditions and wages. In their investigations, scientists were finding
that distilled beverages produced detrimental effects on the human
mind and body. Because of these studies, whiskey and brandy
were removed from the “U.S. Pharmacopoeia” in 1915, an official
listing of medicinal drugs.
Liquor Consumed in the U.S.
(Source: U.S. Statistical Abstract)
Year
Spirits
(Gals)
Wines
(Gals)
Beer
(Gals)
Total
(Gals)
Per Capita
(Gals)
1850
51.8 mil*
6.3 mil
36.5 mil
94.7 mil
4.08
1860
89.9 mil
10.8 mil 101.3 mil
202.1 mil
6.43
1870
79.8 mil
12.2 mil 204.7 mil
296.1 mil
7.70
1880
63.5 mil
28.0 mil 414.2 mil
505.8 mil
10.08
1890
87.8 mil
28.9 mil 855.9 mil
1900
97.5 mil
29.9 mil
1910
133.1 mil
1915
127.1 mil
972.7 mil
15.53
1.2 tril**
1.3 tril
17.75
60.5 mil
1.8 tril
2.0 tril
22.19
32.9 mil
1.8 tril
2.0 tril
19.80
*million **trillion
Immigration and WW I
Temperance had become a major issue in America, a challenge to its
traditions and routines, which became even more complex with the
influx of more immigration. The newer immigrants came from
European nations that had different customs than found normally
in the U.S. They brought food traditions that were directly connected
to beer and wine consumption. The Mediterranean immigrants were
accustomed to wine, while Irish and German immigrants enjoyed
beer. It was said that the German-American Alliance and the U.S.
German Socialist Party were “spawned in the saloon” and very
opposed to temperance. When the U.S. declared war on Germany
in 1917, beer became linked to the enemy in the minds of many
Americans. Because grain was needed in the war effort to feed
American troops, it had to be rationed nationally. This restriction
had additional support in that Americans were concerned that
alcohol would diminish the American soldier’s ability to fight.
“Liquor is a menace to patriotism,” declared prohibitionist Wayne
Wheeler. This notion and the wartime need for grain caused the
Wartime Prohibition Act to be passed, effective on January 21,
1918. The act was modified by President Woodrow Wilson by
Summer- Autumn 2010
proclamation, allowing 2 2/3 percent alcohol content for beer. Since
the country had federal wartime prohibition, when the war ended,
it seemed natural to continue prohibition by enacting a
constitutional prohibition amendment for peacetime. But patriotism
waned in a few years, with Americans having second thoughts
about federal prohibition law.
State Prohibition and Local Options Laws
In the last two decades of the 19th century, a strong prohibition
movement developed in the Midwest, where Iowa, Kansas, and
North Dakota
became
dry states.
From 1 9 0 7
t o 1 9 1 6 ,
statewide
prohibition
laws went into
effect
in
Arkansas,
Alabama,
Georgia,
Michigan,
Mississippi,
Montana,
Nebraska,
N o r t h
Carolina,
S o u t h
Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah, Virginia,
and
West
Vi rg i n i a .
Anti-Saloon League Poster
Prohibition
Walker Photo
b e c a m e
rooted in conservative rural states. Six states passed state dry
constitutional amendments during 1918-1919. Now only Nevada,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania did not have statewide prohibition
laws or local dry laws. Beer and wine were still consumed in
American homes though, largely through misunderstanding of the
law or the assumption that dry laws didn’t ban beer or wine, just
hard liquor.
18th Amendment
In 1913 and 1915, prohibition amendments to the U.S. Constitution
were debated in Congress but failed to draw the needed
sponsorship. Finally, on December 18, 1917, Congress passed a
prohibition amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 18th Amendment,
to be submitted to the states for ratification. Section 1 of the
amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation,
importation, and exportation of intoxicating beverage liquors;
Section 2 provided power to the federal and state governments to
enforce the amendment; and Section 3 allowed seven years for
two-thirds of the states to ratify the amendment. California’s U.S.
senators were split on the vote, with Senator Johnson, Republican,
voting for it, while Senator Phelan, Democrat, voting against it. In
———————— 190 ————————
the House, five California congressmen (two Republicans, two
Democrats, and one Prohibitionist) voted in favor of the amendment,
while five California congressmen (two Republicans and three
Democrats) voted against it.
The 18th Amendment received ratification from two-thirds of the
states, as required, on January 16, 1919, taking just one year and
eight days for 36 states to approve it. On January 16, 1920, federal
prohibition was law throughout the land. The dry forces were
ecstatic, having finally achieved its chief quest. The prohibition
movement had ridden on the crest of women’s suffrage, the
Progressive Movement, and wartime patriotism, but trouble was
just around the corner as the country moved into a very different
era, the Roaring Twenties, a time of financial success and liberation
from the Victorian Age.
Volstead Act
The 18th Amendment had left the details for its enforcement up to
Congress, which enacted the National Prohibition Act, commonly
known as the Volstead Act, having been authored by Minnesota
Congressman Andrew Volstead. The act was an extensive
administrative law, having three titles, with Title I, providing
enforcement; Title 2, defining intoxicating beverages; and Title 3,
regulating industrial alcohol.
Section 1 of Title II listed the intoxicating liquors: “alcohol, brandy,
whiskey, rum, gin, beer, ale, porter, and wine, in addition thereto
any spirituous, vinous, malt, or fermented liquor, liquids, and
compounds, whether medicated, proprietary, patented, or not, and
by whatever name called, containing one-half of one per centum
[.05 percent] or more of alcohol by volume which are fit for use for
beverage purposes.” Section 3 banned “the manufacture, sell, barter,
transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating
liquor except as authorized in this act, and all provisions of this act
shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating
liquor as a beverage may be prevented.” Section 4 allowed by
governmental permit only liquor that is used for religious sacramental
purposes and non-beverage alcohol such as industrial alcohol,
patented medicines, medicinal and hygienic preparations, food
flavorings and syrups, and vinegar. Section 7 permitted physicians
to prescribe alcoholic beverages for health purposes. Section 21
stated that if intoxicating liquor is found in “any room, house,
building, boat, vehicle, structure, or place where intoxicating liquor
is manufactured, sold, kept, or bartered is in violation of this title.”
The violator would be charged with a misdemeanor, fined not more
than $1,000, and may be imprisoned for not more than a year. Section
29 stated that any person who manufactures or sells intoxicating
liquor for his first offense is to be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned not exceeding six months, with his second offense
carrying a fine between $200 to $2,000 and possible prison time of
one month to five years.
On October 17, 1919, the Volstead Act was sent to President Wilson
by Congress, who vetoed it, with Congress overriding his veto
within two hours by a vote of 176 to 55. Wilson had been
incapacitated by a stroke and was considered by many to be inept.
In his message to Congress, he stated that he considered the
Summer- Autumn 2010
Volstead Act to be an abuse of wartime restrictions. Congress was
uncertain as to his exact meaning, but he did write clearly and
profoundly: “In all matters having to do with the personal habits
and customs of large numbers of our people, we must be certain
that the established processes of legal change are followed. In no
other way can the salutary object sought to be accomplished by
great reforms of this character be made satisfactory and permanent.”
The Volstead Act would become an irritant to most Americans,
because of its definition
of
what
was
intoxicating. Beer and
wine had commonly
contained 5 to 20
percent alcohol, with
beer being set at 2 2/3
percent for World War
I. Quality beer and wine
needed much more
alcohol content than .05
percent
to
be
considered drinkable.
This low of a percentage
became vehemently
unacceptable by the
alcohol drinking public.
The .05 percent figure
was derived from
Congressman Andrew Volstead
studies done in several
Web Photo
states, where alcohol
levels were compared to levels of intoxication. No details of the
studies were given.
Protestant Americans held that intoxication was a sin, and
intoxicating beverages was the major cause of societal problems.
Since most Americans were Protestants and the temperance
movement was about eliminating intoxication, it became essential
to enact prohibition laws that prevented intoxication; therefore, the
18th Amendment disallowed intoxicating liquor, while the Volstead
Act defined intoxication as the alcohol level of .05 percent. Setting
intoxicating beverages at that scant of a percentage doomed
prohibition. Most Americans wanted real beer and wine, with its 520 percent alcohol. Not to have it was infuriating to the common
American. Making fruit juices in residences was allowable by
prohibition as long as they weren’t fermented. Those who had a
stock of alcoholic beverages in their home prior to the Volstead Act,
regardless of alcoholic content, were allowed to retain them.
On June 7, 1920, the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act were
proclaimed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. To further
strengthen prohibition, Congress passed a law, known as the “Jones
Five and Ten,” providing penalties for persons convicted of
manufacturing, importing, exporting, selling, and transporting
intoxicating liquor. The law set the maximum punishment for
prohibition violations at five years in jail and $10,000 in fines.
———————— 191 ————————
Prohibition Statistics
Decreased Alcohol Patients
Statistics from New York state mental hospitals revealed that
prohibition decreased the number of patients admitted with alcohol
psychoses. In 1910, 8.5 percent of all New York state mental patients
had alcohol issues, 2.5 percent in 1920, 4.8 percent in 1926, and 5.2
in 1930.
Alcohol-Related Deaths
U.S. Department of Commerce figures showed that alcohol-related
deaths decreased during prohibition. In 1910, alcohol-related deaths
were 5.4 percent per 100,000 deaths; 1 percent in 1920; 3.9 percent
in 1926; and 3.7 percent in 1929.
Arrests and Confiscations for 1921, 1925, and 1929
Prohibition Bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department produced the
following statistics in regard to arrests and confiscations by federal
prohibition agents. These figures do not include enforcement
statistics from state and local enforcement officers and courts.
Number of persons arrested:
1921: 34,175 1925: 62,747 1929: 66,878
Number of autos confiscated:
1921: 706
1925: 6,089
1929: 7,299
Number of liquor stills confiscated:
1921: 10,991 1925: 17,854
1929: 11,542
Gallons of distilled liquor confiscated:
1921: 413,98 1925: 1,102,787 1929: 1,185,654
Gallons of beer confiscated:
1921: 4,963,005 1925: 7,040,537 1929: 3,312,491
Gallons of wine, cider, mash, and pomace confiscated:
1921: 428,303 1925: 10,572,933 1929: 26,393,410
Appraised value of property confiscated:
1921: $8.1 million; 1925: $11.1 million; 1929: $25.7 million
Criminal Prosecutions for 1921, 1925, and 1929
U.S. Treasury Department provided these statistics for criminal
prosecution in federal courts for federal prohibition violations.
These statistics do not include statistics from state and local courts.
Criminal prosecutions started during the year:
1921: 29,114 1925: 50,743 1929: 74,723
Convictions during the year:
1921: 17,962 1925: 38,498 1929: 56,546
Fines and penalties imposed during the year:
1921: $3.3 million 1925: $7.6 million 1929: $7.3 million
U.S. Congressional Budgets Provided to the U.S. Prohibition
Bureau for Prohibition Enforcement
The U.S. Treasury Department statistics: 1920 $2.2 million; 1921
$6.3 million; 1927 $11.9 million; and 1929 $12.4 million.
Summer- Autumn 2010
Repealing Prohibition
Beginning in 1925, the wets began in earnest to organize an effort
to repeal prohibition. Illinois voted in 1926 to modify their “little
Volstead Act,” while the Nevada electorate denounced prohibition,
and Wisconsin’s state legislature repealed its state’s enforcement
law. New York and Montana legislatures refused to pass state
enforcement laws. There were several failed attempts in Congress
to modify the Volstead Act, permitting pre-prohibition beer, having
at least 2½ percent alcohol.
In opposition to the WCTU was the Women’s Organization for
National Prohibition Reform claiming that prohibition was “wrong
in principle and disastrous in consequence. The corruption, the
tragic loss of life, and the appalling increase of crime have attended
the abortive attempt to enforce it.” Women now took to drinking
alcoholic beverages as never before, especially in the popular
speakeasies, where alcohol was served with dinner and where there
was the “cocktail hour.” Young people were also drinking alcohol
more than ever, primarily because of its easy access from
bootleggers, who didn’t care about one’s age. In 1926, mental
hospitals in eight states claimed that there was a sharp increase of
young patients during prohibition.
In 1927, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment was
formed and began actively challenging prohibition by sponsoring
and financing an effort to repeal the 18 th Amendment. The
association worked to elect wet politicians and to educate the public
concerning prohibition’s violations of civil liberties. Wealthy
industrialists, who had supported prohibition, now wanted to repeal
the 18th Amendment, chiefly because of enforcement issues and
divisions it created in the country.
Prohibition enforcement was more effective in the rural South and
West than in other areas of the country. In large urban centers,
prohibition law was flagrantly violated, while in small industrial
towns, prohibition was mostly ignored.
In the 1928 presidential election, Republican dry candidate Herbert
Hoover opposed Democratic wet candidate Alfred E. Smith, who
was a Catholic New Yorker. Smith wanted to amend the Volstead
Act to permit the return of real beer and wine. He advocated that
state governments should manufacture alcoholic beverages through
private contracts and sell liquor at state government stores.
Hoover won the election, and early in his administration, he appointed
a commission to study prohibition’s enforcement issues. It was
headed by George W. Wickersham, who had been U.S. Attorney
General under President Taft. The Wickersham Commission did a
thorough investigation of the entire prohibition question, filing a
five-volume report. In the report’s summary, the commission stated
that it opposed the repeal of prohibition, opposed federal and state
government liquor stores, and opposed the manufacturing and sale
of beer and wine with alcohol content more than .05 percent. It did
find though:
That a main source of [enforcement] difficulty is in the attitude
of at least a very large number of respectable citizens in most of
our large cities and in several states. It is made more clear when
———————— 192 ————————
the enforcement of the National Prohibition Act is compared
with the enforcement of the laws of narcotics, which are
supported everywhere by a general and determined public
sentiment. There is general prevalence of drinking in homes,
clubs, and hotels. Throughout the country, people of wealth,
businessmen, and professional men and their families, and the
higher paid workingmen and their families, are drinking in large
numbers in open flouting of the law. And neither Congress nor
the states set up adequate machinery or appropriated sufficient
funds for the enforcement of the prohibitory legislation and
state legislation. It is aptly said, “the drys have their prohibition
law and the wets have their liquor.”
During prohibition, “near beer” had been manufactured and sold
under labels, such as, Barlo, Becco, Bevo, Bravo, Cero, Chrismo,
Gozo, Graino, Kippo, Lux-O, Milo, and Mulo. Some said that near
President Franklin Roosevelt with Coal Miner
Web Photo
beer was “such a wishy-washy, thin, ill-tasting, discouraging sort
of slop that it might have been dreamed up by a Puritan Machiavelli
with the intent of disgusting drinkers with genuine beer forever.”
Franklin Roosevelt
The 1932 Democratic convention clearly revealed how far public
sentiment had advanced towards ending prohibition. The
Democratic Party placed a plank in its platform to repeal prohibition,
while Republicans had a plank to amend prohibition. In his
acceptance speech as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate,
Franklin Roosevelt spoke firmly against prohibition, saying, “This
convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal. And I am
confident that the United States of America wants repeal.” He also
called for the “modification of the Volstead Act just as fast as the
Lord will let us, to authorize the manufacture and sale of beer.”
Pandemonium broke out on the convention floor, with the delegates
cheering wildly in support. Roosevelt knew absolutely that
Americans wanted real beer, and he needed beer taxes to fight the
Great Depression. Scientific studies at the time showed that beer
with 2.75 percent alcohol could not cause intoxication. Roosevelt
stated that he would provide his own “scientific definition” of
intoxicating beverages in his urgency to modify the Volstead Act.
The 1932 election found great numbers of wet candidates being
elected to federal and state offices across the nation. Roosevelt
was elected president and began about the business of legalizing
3.2 percent beer and the repealing of prohibition.
Summer- Autumn 2010
Just three weeks after taking office, Roosevelt signed a
congressional bill, Cullen-Harrison Act, which boosted alcohol
content in beverages from .05 percent to 3.2 percent. It is unclear
where Congress derived that percentage, but humorists say that
Cullen and Harrison drank beer until they were drunk, which was at
3.2 percent. On April 7, 1933, throughout the nation, 3.2 beer was
sold and drank where allowable by state and local ordinances. Wine
with 3.2 percent alcohol was now legal as well, but wineries were
not interested in producing “weak, tasteless stuff.”
The constitutional amendment to repeal prohibition was the 21st
Amendment, submitted to the U.S. Senate on February 14, 1933 by
Senator Blaine of Wisconsin. It was approved on February 16th by
the Senate, by a vote of 63 to 23. The House passed it four days
later, 289 to 121. As required, two-thirds, or 36 states, ratified it.
Only three states, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
in finality did not approve it, while 50 percent of the conservative
rural states voted for repeal. Congress officially approved the
ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933, at 3:32 p.m.,
ending thirteen years of federal prohibition. The 21st Amendment
contained three short sections, with Section 1 granting the repeal
of the 18th Amendment; Section 2 prohibiting transportation or
importation of intoxicating liquors into dry states; and Section 3
allowing seven years for the states to ratify.
Conclusion
Federal prohibition failed because the law was too restrictive,
unenforceable, and an affront to popular American traditions of
alcohol consumption. Federal prohibition though was enacted for
appropriate and sensible reasons by average decent Americans.
Prior to prohibition, the vast majority of Americans cherished
common beer and wine, while acknowledging that controls on hard
liquor were necessary. They wanted to put an end to the offensive
old saloon and the public drunk. Federal prohibition was a result of
the temperance movement, the Progressive Movement, World War
I patriotism, and the Wartime Prohibition Act.
Prohibition’s failure revealed a diverse American population, finding
that the majority did not agree with conservative Protestant
Americans concerning alcohol consumption. Most felt that a small
group of Americans had forced their morality on the rest, which
resulted in widespread resentment. Prohibition did eliminate the
old saloon, but in its place arose a different kind of drinking house,
the speakeasy, a half million nationwide, that became bars and
cocktail lounges after prohibition, with women now partakers of
alcoholic beverages. Because it was too easy for Americans to
brew, ferment, or distill alcoholic beverages, prohibition was difficult
to enforce by a small number of federal prohibition agents, only
3,000 at its peak. This required the states to enact federal prohibition
enforcement laws, “little Volstead Acts,” to aid the federal
government with enforcement. It became the general conclusion
that prohibition should not have been a federal responsibility, but
a matter left up to the states and local governments.
Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
———————— 193 ————————
Part 1B - Temperance and Prohibition in American History
News from Across the Nation
Prohibition in Stanislaus County Newspapers
T
his article was written strictly using local newspapers, mostly
the Modesto Bee, Modesto Morning Herald, Modesto NewsHerald, and Turlock Daily Journal. These were the sources read
daily by county residents providing them information concerning
prohibition, to enable them to form opinions and take positions
concerning federal prohibition.
Prohibition Begins
As saloons across America closed and their buildings vacated,
books replaced liquor bottles. That’s right! There was a need for
branch libraries, and since the corner saloon was now closed and
its shelves empty of bottles,
librarians filled them with
publications for the public to
enjoy. Of course, the odor of
alcohol took some time to
evaporate. In April 1920, there
was a suggestion to replace
coal and oil with industrial
alcohol as a fuel. Industrial
alcohol was denatured by
governmentally contracted
manufacturers, making it
undrinkable but usable for
commercial purposes.
$3,800, plus a jail sentence. (The term “bootlegger” first referred to
Indian traders keeping a whiskey-filled container in their boot.) The
head of the U.S. Secret Service, Bruce Bielaski, was seen carrying
two bottles of high quality whiskey from his office in Washington,
D.C. He stopped at his car, opened the radiator cap and poured the
contents of the expensive booze into his radiator. When questioned,
he told reporters the bottles came from Secret Service storage where
confiscated liquor was kept.
In August 1920, the Anti-Saloon League told the press that it
planned to stay clear from debating prohibition during the election
season, wanting it to be a nonissue. Contrarily, antiprohibitionists took the
prohibition issue to the public,
hoping that citizens would
reject it and demand repeal.
Many businessmen were
opposed to prohibition before
it was enacted, but soon their
opinion changed completely,
because money previously
spent on liquor was now
buying store merchandise.
There was movement in
In May, the Federal Prohibition
Congress to pass legislation
Commission limited physicians
allowing light beer and wine,
to 100 medicinal whiskey
which would have low alcohol
Anti-Liquor Cartoon from the Newspaper Web Photo
prescriptions per a three-month
content. William Gibbs
period. Normally, a druggist dispensed 35 to 60 gallons of liquor a McAdoo, ex-U.S. Secretary of Treasurer, argued that such a law
year, while a wholesale druggist was authorized annually to sell would defeat the purpose of prohibition, because children would
legally 400 gallons of high proof liquor and 800 gallons of ordinary be weaned with light beer and wine to advance later to intoxicating
liquor.
alcohol. In September, life insurance companies reported that there
had been a slight decline in deaths caused by alcoholism.
In the 1920 election year, the Anti-Saloon League urged voters
to elect candidates who supported strict enforcement of
Volstead Act
prohibition. In San Francisco, Republican convention delegates In October 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it would not hear
took no stance on enforcing prohibition, not wanting to make it a any more cases concerning the 18th Amendment and Volstead Act,
political issue. An editorial in the Turlock Daily Journal on June a blow to the anti-prohibition forces. Those forces had planned to
1920, warned voters to stay clear of Prohibition Party candidates, draft state referendums to revoke the ratification of the 18th
because their candidates had never been elected to Congress. Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that such state
Instead, it urged voters to make their vote count by supporting dry referendums would be ruled null and void. The court also announced
candidates from the two major political parties. In July, at the that it would not hear cases concerning definitions of intoxicating
Prohibition Party convention in Lincoln, Nebraska, worn-out politico liquor.
William Jennings Bryant was selected to be its party’s presidential
The wets claimed that state prohibition enforcement laws, known
candidate.
as “little Volstead Acts,” had to have the same text as the Volstead
In July, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, or they wouldn’t be in compliance. The U.S. Supreme Court
18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. The U.S. Bureau of Internal countered, ruling that all “little Volstead Acts” were constitutional
Revenue announced that a bootlegger could receive a fine up to regardless of their texts. Anti-prohibitionists asked in frustration
———————— 194 ————————
and mockery for the court to rule the U.S. Constitution
unconstitutional, because it contained the prohibition amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the request as absurd.
Bootlegging
A Turlock Daily Journal editorial on October 1, 1920 reported that
the federal government had on hand 54 million gallons of liquor in
its warehouses. The writer claimed that 15 million gallons earmarked
for federally contracted medicinal and sacramental use had already
been stolen and was being sold on
the bootleg market. To prevent this
crime from continuing, he urged the
canceling of wholesaler permits.
Summer- Autumn 2010
A Modesto News-Herald editorial of November 17, 1924 discussed
the unpopularity of prohibition. The writer noted that there were
laws against stock market schemes and crooked brokerages, which
people violated, but Americans respected those statutes and wanted
them to remain. This was not true with prohibition. The editorial
recommended a public vote on prohibition to see what should be
done.
Assistant U.S. Secretary of Treasury Lincoln C. Andrews told the
House Ways and Means Committee
that “near beer” and “denatured
alcohol” should be taxed 1¢ per gallon,
because it would provide necessary
funds for inspecting governmentally
contracted breweries and for
monitoring medicinal and sacramental
alcohol. Also, the tax money would
help fund prohibition enforcement.
Near beer was a legal light beer, having
up to .05 percent alcohol, while
denatured alcohol was a legal
industrial alcohol that contained
nauseous additives to make it nonconsumable by humans.
In the first nine months of 1923, there
were nearly 2,000 deaths in the U.S.
due to poisoned bootleg liquor, with
the northern states having more
deaths than the southern states. A
Turlock Daily Journal editorial on
November 1, 1923 reported that crime
in the nation had increased
substantially according to recently
released government statistics. The
editorial commented, “Everyone
knows that there has been a general
In December 1924, U.S. Senator
Distributing Some Moonshine Using Teamwork
weakening in morals since the war,
Edwards, New Jersey Democrat,
Web Photo
which is the cause of increased crime,”
submitted legislation to repeal the
not prohibition. He urged everyone to give prohibition a chance, Volstead Act, while Senator Edge, New Jersey Republican,
so it could accomplish its purposes and demonstrate its value to introduced a bill to legalize the manufacture of beer with 2¾ percent
the nation.
alcohol. Both bills failed, because both legislative bodies were still
overwhelmingly pro-prohibition. Edge was the leader of the Senate’s
Mabel Willebrandt, Assistant U.S. Attorney General, asked for the wet bloc in Congress, commenting that prohibition enforcement
resignation of ten U.S. district attorneys, because of their indifferent “has been a demoralizing failure.” He declared, “Citizens everywhere
attitude towards the prosecution of prohibition cases. A November are ignoring prohibition that is evident. There is increased
29, 1923 Turlock Daily Journal editorial noted that in 1923 mutual drunkenness, increased alcohol insanity, open bootlegging, and
savings banks in the nation received 500,000 new accounts, a net widespread corruption.” He said, he “would support a compromise
gain of more than $500 million. Building and loan associations measure to modify prohibition, making it more enforceable. Surely,
showed an increase of over 800,000 new memberships, adding $600 a temperate condition would be better for the morals of the nation
million to their assets. The editorial claimed that prohibition was than prohibition that does not prohibit, but breeds defiance.”
the cause of this financial boom.
Prohibition Results
In November 1923, Palmer Canfield, the federal prohibition director U.S. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas, author of the 18 th
of New York State, proclaimed in an issue of Physical Culture that Amendment, commented to the press, “Undoubtedly as a result of
“all bootleg liquor is poison.” It was the findings of his raids on prohibition, the average American today is better in economic
bootleg operations that only one out of one hundred bottles was condition than ever before. While he is still far from complete
consumable liquor, while the other 99 were “noxious, unwholesome, economic independence, his life expectancy is longer, his savings
semi-poisonous, and synthetic.” Coloring in the bootleg liquor came greater, his range of opportunity larger, his pursuit of happiness
from a caramel additive, with its taste being synthetically flavored. more certain of realization than in the era of the open saloon.” E.H.
Bootleg liquor could contain acetone, benzol, carbolic acid, cologne, Gary of the steel industry said he was satisfied with prohibition but
hair tonic, iodine, and wood alcohol, all that could do irreparable urged more rigid enforcement. W.B. Storey, president of Santa Fe
damage to internal organs and the brain. It was found in Railroad, proclaimed the reduction in drinking has benefited the
investigations that the number of deaths from bootleg liquor was railroad, with much less employee drunkenness. Rockwell D. Hunt,
increasing at an alarming rate. Hospitals and insane asylums USC Professor of Economics, stated, “The nation’s decree against
reported they were admitting large numbers of victims from bad the liquor habit was a just judgment, with beneficial results being
liquor.
———————— 195 ————————
felt on all sides.” U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover
declared the country’s prosperity was due to prohibition.
In January 1926, prohibition celebrated its sixth anniversary, while
proponents and opponents battled daily in political forums, while
the dry crowd remained in domination. But sentiment in Congress
over the exemption of beer and wine from prohibition was rising.
Federal Prohibition Director James Jones announced he was
increasing the number of federal prohibition agents from 2,000 to
3,000, while office employees would be reduced from 1,000 to 300.
Group Photo of Various Participants of Probition Enforcement
Web Photo
He was decentralizing the federal force, forming 23 separate districts
across the nation for better control at the local level. The Coast
Guard and Customs Service had grown in size to improve their
performance in enforcing prohibition. More extradition treaties had
been instituted to return rumrunners for trial. The federal government
asked states to enforce prohibition more severely, allocating $30
million more to increase its prosecution.
Anti-Prohibitionists
In February 1926, Senator Edward I. Edwards, New Jersey Democrat,
stated in an address at the second annual “Face the Facts
Conference” that there were millions of Americans ready to march
on Washington, D.C. for the modification of the Volstead Act. He
declared that prohibition was the idea of a small minority, forced on
fair-minded and just Americans, for “self-glorification and selfaggrandizement.” He urged the passing of federal legislation to
exempt beer and wine from prohibition, with wording that the U.S.
Supreme Court would accept. Edwards noted that prohibition was
enacted for appropriate reasons at the time, but times have changed,
and it was time to look at the current facts. He ended his address by
declaring that prohibition was dangerous to the nation, “because
of its octopus tentacles are into the nation’s fabric.”
The WCTU responded to the Senator Edwards’ address by stating
that Christians were expected to honor the U.S. Constitution fully
by supporting its enforcement, and that a few politicians were trying
to reduce the power of the people by changing or outlawing
Summer- Autumn 2010
prohibition. The U.S. Bureau of Internal Revenue learned that
vinegar was being used in the manufacture of bootleg liquor, a
cheap process and hard to enforce. Federal prohibition officials
couldn’t verify the claim, but asserted that there was a commercial
chemical that bootleggers were using, but production of the chemical
had been stopped by authorities.
In June 1926, it was reported that since the beginning of prohibition,
there had been over 200 casualties resulting from gun battles
between enforcement agents and bootleggers, especially
moonshiners, and rumrunners. Ninety-five prohibition officers had
been killed in the line of duty, while 93 suspects were killed resisting
arrest. Most of these casualties occurred in the Appalachian states
during raids on liquor stills and caches of liquor. It was a standing
order of the U.S. Treasury Department for prohibition enforcement
officers to use their revolvers and rifles only in self-defense.
Enforcement cost money. For the fiscal year of 1926-27, the Treasury
Department received $14 million from Congress to marshal the
prohibition law.
In July 1926, Wayne B. Wheeler, representing the Anti-Saloon
League stated before a U.S. Senate investigating committee that
the league wrote nearly the complete text of the Volstead Act, while
in communication with Congressman Volstead. The league wanted
more exclusions in the act but felt Congress would not have adopted
them. Since 1920, the league spent $6.5 million in lobbying Congress,
with nearly $170,000 going to support the political campaigns of
Richard Pearson Hobson, the so-called “Father of the 18 th
Amendment,” all entirely legal.
At the national WCTU convention in Los Angeles in September
1926, the organization’s president, Ella Boole, spoke on prohibition,
declaring there would be no compromise with wet forces on
permitting light beer and wine. Also, she asked state and federal
governments to strengthen their enforcement. The convention
approved the following program of action to combat alcohol: educate
the public, educate children through school curriculum, register
prohibition supporters for voting, support public pro-prohibition
officials, and observe January 16 and 17 as special law enforcement
days with public events. January 16, 1920 was when federal
prohibition became effective.
1926-27
U.S. Attorney General Sargent reported that federal courts were
sending more prohibition violators to jail instead of fining them. In
1925, there were 44,022 convicted prohibition violators, with jail
sentences totaling 5,666 years and fines amounting to $7.3 million.
Dry membership in Congress had increased as a result of the
November 1926 election, with 72 percent of House Republicans
and 71 percent of House Democrats being dry. In the Senate, 76
percent of the Republicans and 70 percent of the Democrats were
dry. State voters passed prohibition enforcement referendums in
California, Colorado, and Missouri, providing authority to state
and local officials to police federal prohibition.
The most prosperous year in American history was 1926, with bank
deposits totaling a high of $48.8 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion
———————— 196 ————————
from 1925. Every major industry in the U.S. had gained in wealth
and grown in size, with the only exception being agriculture. Harvard
Economics Professor T.N. Carver spoke at the annual meeting of
the American Economic Association stating that prohibition was
indeed responsible for the nation’s economic success.
In December 1926, U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon announced that
his department was having poisons removed from legal industrial
alcohol, while adding a nauseous chemical to halt human
consumption. This brought a negative reaction from the Anti-Saloon
League but support from the National
Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment, calling it crucial in the
war against deaths from drinking
industrial alcohol. The league stated
that removal of poisons from industrial
alcohol was not chemically possible.
Dry forces reacted to this claim by
asserting the league was getting
desperate, because it was losing the
prohibition fight. In February 1927,
Mellon claimed that the government
hadn’t yet found a method of removing
all the poisonous wood alcohol from
industrial alcohol.
Summer- Autumn 2010
of America regardless of party to put aside any preconceived notions
and to approach it fairly.” In a Milwaukee speech, Smith provided
the history of the prohibition movement, telling the audience that
patriotic fervor during the European War was the primary cause of
instituting federal prohibition. He commented that people were
accustomed to wartime prohibition and were willing to try it during
peacetime; however, he proclaimed, “Experience has taught us, and
I believe a great majority of the people themselves believe that this
was an erroneous idea.”
Smith continued by saying that the
question is not wet or dry, but what is
best for the country at this juncture in
its history. He noted that American
youth, especially girls, were drinking
liquor, and the carrying of a hip flask
by Americans at first was a faddish
practice, but now it was becoming a
custom. Smith felt prohibition had
become a challenge and sport for many
to violate, especially America’s youth.
He declared, “Prohibition law should
reflect but not make the standard of
conduct in each state of this Union,” a
statement similar to one made by
President Calvin Coolidge in 1922.
Smith accused the Republican Party for
Canadians shipped their bonded
poorly managing prohibition for eight
(taxed) whiskey to other nations first,
years, paralyzing the nation. He took
returning it in vessels that anchored
the position not to revoke the 18 th
off the U.S. coast. Smugglers would
A Bootleggers Worst Nightmare - Feds Pouring
amendment but to amend it with the
then use fast, small craft to carry the
Out Confiscated Liquor Stock
Web Photo
correct percent of alcohol that
whiskey to the American shore. U.S.
Treasury Secretary Mellon commented that 50 million gallons of scientifically causes intoxication. This way wets can have their
stolen industrial alcohol was used yearly in the production of illegal traditional alcoholic beverages, while the dry states, counties, and
bootleg liquor, but recent governmental controls on industrial cities can remain dry if they want.
alcohol were ending the theft problem. It was reported by Mellon
that there were six distilleries in Kentucky and Pennsylvania that A Riverbank farmer, H.H. Winger, sent a letter to the editor of the
manufactured 2 million gallons of medicinal whiskey yearly under Modesto News-Herald on October 21, 1928, vilifying Hoover, the
Republican presidential candidate, by first criticizing him for using
federal government contract.
his power as Secretary of Commerce against the farmer and also for
In December 1927, Laura Volstead, daughter of Andrew Volstead, not recognizing the severe ills that prohibition had brought to the
“Father of Prohibition,” addressed the 53rd annual convention of nation. Winger was a bone dry Republican but now an angry
WCTU. She claimed that after seven years of prohibition, $14 billion turncoat declaring:
had been saved by Americans that would have gone to liquor. The
I think the Republican Party has been the friend of bootleggers
major goal of WCTU remained the rigid enforcement of prohibition
and an enemy to prohibition. I believe something should be
and the election of dry candidates. At the biennial convention of
done to rid the country of graft, rottenness, and corruption,
the Anti-Saloon League, President Mrs. Henry W. Peabody
caused by the present party’s gross inefficiency in enforcement
proclaimed that “women are not satisfied with the present
of the prohibition law. You understand that the party now in
enforcement of the law,” and that since half of the voters are women,
power has been in power almost the entire time since the 18th
they must adamantly support a “clear straight dry program.”
Amendment was passed. And what has it done to enforce
1928 Presidential Election
The 1928 presidential election featured New York Governor Alfred
E. Smith against U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover. Smith
advocated using state referendums to measure the strength of the
public’s sentiment concerning prohibition. He declared, “I regard
this [prohibition] as a great moral issue, and I appeal to the people
prohibition? Governor Alfred E. Smith of New York (Democrat)
has the foresight to see a remedy for the astonishing graft
conditions. He proposes to put prohibition up to The People,
to let them decide if they want modification. I believe something
must be done to remedy existing evils. I am going to vote for Al
Smith.
———————— 197 ————————
Republican Hoover won the November 1928 presidential election,
while Republican Hiram Johnson was elected as California governor.
The WCTU declared that Hoover’s election had much to do with
women aggressively campaigning for a dry victory. In late 1928,
U.S. Prohibition Commissioner J.M. Doran claimed there would be
lesser deaths now caused by wood alcohol poisoning, because the
government had substituted aldehol for pyridine as a denaturant,
reducing wood alcohol level to four percent, which eliminates alcohol
poisoning. He also announced that smuggling from Canada, Latin
America, and Mexico was now on the decline.
1929
In September 1929, Dr. Ernest H. Charlington, General Secretary for
the World League Against Alcoholism,
addressed an assembly in Stockton at the
College of the Pacific. In his remarks, he
stated that prohibition will last as long as it
“is in harmony with modern technology.” In
the past a half-intoxicated worker could
operate the old crude machinery, but that
wasn’t the case in modern industry, because
it took a sober mind to run the new
technology. He declared, “If prohibition were
in tune with the new age, nothing could
sweep it from its secure foundations.”
Summer- Autumn 2010
and transport it. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that buying liquor
was not a violation of federal prohibition law.
Tenth Anniversary
January 16, 1930 was the tenth anniversary of prohibition, calling
for special celebrations. The Anti-Saloon League published a
special issue of its periodical, providing the statistical proof that
prohibition was beneficial to the nation. President Hoover stated,
“There can be no doubt of the economic benefits of prohibition.
Viewing the temperance question only from this angle, prohibition
has proved its case.”
In 1930, chief federal enforcement administrators were reassigned
in an effort to strengthen border control
and ports of entry, while the lower courts
were given broader powers in their
prohibition cases. A prohibition battle was
being fought in Congress, with Senator
Borah, Idaho Republican, calling for a
thorough investigation of prohibition
enforcement, especially in regard to the
openness of liquor usage in cities and the
production of industrial alcohol. In
September 1930, U.S. Prohibition Director
Woodstock opened an academy for
prohibition agents to train them to be
professional law enforcement officers. The
public had registered numerous complaints
against federal agents’ demeanor and
techniques.
It was reported that federal prohibition
agents were provided with a new field
manual, containing the responsibilities,
tactics, and behavior required of them. There
were 125 different guiding principles and
rules on how to enforce the Volstead Act.
The chairman of the New York Democratic
Woman Moonshiners Guarding Their
The manual presented information on
convention was New York’s U.S. Senator
Liquor
Web Photo
arresting techniques, rights of citizens, and
Robert F. Wagner. New York Governor
the filing of reports. Each agent was required
Franklin Roosevelt wrote the senator telling
to maintain a daily journal that could be used in court. Their moral him that the problem with prohibition was the 18th Amendment itself,
behavior and appearance were addressed. It commanded them to because it was too clear and direct, lacking latitude for its
only become involved in major prohibition crimes, leaving the minor enforcement. He urged Wagner as New York’s senator to advocate
ones to local authorities. The object of federal prohibition for the repeal of prohibition. Montana’s Democratic Senator Burton
enforcement was to eliminate the source of illegal liquor. In November K. Wheeler, a bone dry proponent, agreed with Roosevelt, adding
1929, President Hoover stated that he wanted the enforcement of that prohibition should reside with individual states and not with
prohibition to be transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department to the federal government. He advocated the repeal of the 18th
Amendment, stating, “I don’t see how they could think otherwise
the Justice Department.
in view of the way prohibition has worked out.” Other senators
In early 1929, Republican Congressman Edward Denison from Illinois were now joining the repeal bandwagon. Dr. F. Scott McBride,
had his suitcase confiscated by federal agents, finding it filled with General Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League declared, “Dry
bottles of whiskey. He beat the wrap though, because of a new law forces would not surrender to repeal, modification, or any other
concerning a congressmen’s right to transport gifts into the U.S. program of the anti-prohibitionists.” He acknowledged the fact that
after visiting abroad. He was a dry congressman, having voted 100 there were now more wet representatives in Congress.
percent for prohibition legislation. U.S. Senator Brookhard, Iowa
Republican, told of a dinner sponsored by senators, where the On September 18, 1930, William H. Stayton, head of the Association
guests were provided with hip-flasks containing liquor. Federal Against the Prohibition Amendment, testified before the U.S. Senate
prohibition agents arrested deluxe bootlegger, George Cassidy, on Lobby Investigating Committee. He stated that millionaires, such
the steps of the Senate’s office building for trafficking in liquor. as DuPont, Atterbury, and Raskob, would save millions in corporate
Senators called him “the man with the green hat.” It was not a tax if prohibition were repealed. The lofty corporate taxes would be
criminal offense to buy liquor, only to manufacture, sell, possess, reduced and substituted by new taxation of the liquor industry.
Stayton said that if liquor were taxed here as it was in England, the
———————— 198 ————————
result would mean $1.3 million in new taxes immediately. This would
help towards returning the nation to financial prosperity.
The Federal Farm Board urged the U.S. government to become
involved in the marketing of grapes to reduce surplus and to prevent
the sale of cheap grapes to bootleggers. Grain and Feed Dealers
National Association clamored for the return of beer manufacturing.
It estimated that 100 million bushels of small grains would be needed
to supply beer production, a boon to agriculture.
Chairman Woodcock of Hoover’s Law Enforcement Commission
stated that Americans consumed an estimated 876 million gallons
of liquor each year, or seven gallons per every man, woman, and
child. He claimed that alcohol consumption during prohibition was
reduced by 40 percent. The Association Against the Prohibition
Amendment disagreed, estimating that one trillion gallons of liquor
was consumed by Americans each year. U.S. Prohibition Director
Woodstock announced that there were nearly 66,000 arrests for
prohibition violations in 1929, with the forecast being 68,000 for
1930. It was found that the popularity of manufactured fruit juices
had increased dramatically during prohibition, especially from 1929
to 1930 with a 38 percent increase. The nation’s exports of nonalcoholic beverages, primarily fruit juices, increased from $500,000
in 1923 to $1.7 million in 1929.
A congresswoman from California remarked in a radio program that
“The American people have weighed prohibition in the balance,
the good and the bad, and found in wanting.” More senators were
now interested in repeal, while the House had only 63 members out
of 435 who were interested in modifying prohibition. A federal
prohibition agent went undercover as an employee of the U.S. Senate
to investigate the sales of liquor to senators and their aides. He
filed reports on the activity and confiscated a bootlegger’s list of
customers that included political officeholders.
The results of the November 1930 election found the House
membership just as dry as the previous one. It now had 254 dry
members to 65 wet members, while the rest were non-committal.
The Senate gained a few wet senators, but drys in the Senate were
still in control. The report from President Hoover’s Law Enforcement
Commission was being prepared, with rumors floating that it might
recommend light beer and wine. Federal Prohibition Director
Woodstock announced that the federal government would no
longer interfere with home winemaking as long as the wine wasn’t
sold. In 1931, Woodcock announced that he would not increase the
number of enforcement agents beyond 2,500, because of the
entrenched economy, even though Congress had allocated an extra
$2 million for 500 additional prohibition agents. Each year the federal
government had spent $35 to $40 million on prohibition enforcement.
Grape Concentrate
Al Capone issued an ultimatum to Fruit Industries, a company of
the California Vineyards Association, not to ship grape concentrate
to Chicago any longer, because it jeopardizes the beer market in the
city. Some thought that the ultimatum was a scam by Fruit Industries
to advertise its grape concentrate, Vine-Glo. The company received
financial support from the federal government and from commercial
Summer- Autumn 2010
sources, with its grape concentrate saving the grape industry $350
million in wasted grapes. New York City rabbis used the grape
concentrate to make their sacramental wine, by adding water and
fermenting it. The beer industry argued that Vine-Glo was an unfair
product, cutting into legal “near beer” sales. The federal government
considered grape concentrate legitimate as long as the wine it
produced wasn’t sold. The Methodist Board of Temperance declared
grape concentrate “the biggest threat to prohibition.” Former
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Mabel Willebrandt had been hired
as counsel to Fruit Industries, with many of her former prohibition
supporters calling her a backslider and turncoat. Federal Prohibition
Director Woodstock claimed he was busy in federal courts battling
grape concentrate and a malt product, “wort,” used in brewing
beer. A federal judge in Kansas City ruled that a grape concentrate
being manufactured by Ukiah Grape Products Company violated
prohibition law, because the intent was winemaking.
Prohibition Supporters
The U.S. Prohibition Bureau filed its annual report for fiscal year
1929-30, reporting 27,709 violators of federal prohibition were in jail
or prison, an increase of 6,107 from the previous year. Seventy-five
leaders of the dry movement, led by the Anti-Saloon League, met in
Washington, D.C. to discuss a national prohibition referendum to
modify prohibition. The delegation decided not to support the
amending or repealing of federal prohibition. James M. Doran,
Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol, announced a new nonpoisonous denaturant, called alcotate, which will be substituted
for wood alcohol in industrial alcohol. Its taste was that of spoiled
eggs and garlic, thought not to be something wanted by the
bootlegger.
In September 1931, American economist Bernard Baruch urged the
repeal of prohibition to save the world economy. He argued that it
would restore taxation in the U.S. to balance the budget and return
respect for law and order. There were numerous pleas to President
Hoover to modify prohibition law to bolster the national fight
against the Great Depression. From many forums throughout the
nation came the urgent demand to legalized liquor, because it would
garner millions in taxes. Just the sanctioning of light beer and wine
alone would generate $500 million it was estimated. If the liquor
industry was revitalized, it would reduce unemployment and
stimulate sales in supplies and equipment, while energizing the
transportation industry. The agricultural industry would profit
enormously, because their grain and fruit crops would go towards
the manufacturing of alcohol, eliminating farm surplus, which had
become a serious problem. Hoover heard these arguments, but
staunchly stood by prohibition and opposed any modification. He
felt that the restoration of beer manufacturing was “illogical,” and
he would not address the prohibition problem until the country
was once again economically strong. Most thought Hoover took
this position because prohibitionists were still in the majority across
the nation and were his political supporters.
Legalization of 3.2 Beer
The American Legion held its 1931 convention in Detroit at which
President Hoover addressed the assembled membership. While
departing the podium, the legionnaires began shouting “We want
———————— 199 ————————
Summer- Autumn 2010
beer, we want beer!” At first the chant was in fun, but it soon turned
serious, with it continuing the next day at the general meeting. A
leader of the dry forces of the Methodist Church, Dr. Clarence
Wilson, claimed that the American Legion convention attendees
were of a “lower level” and were seeking to dominate the
organization. The American Legion declared it wanted a national
referendum to repeal prohibition, with the American Bar Association
and American Medical Association concurring. It was agreed by
anti-prohibitionists that the language used to modify the Volstead
Act for real beer must be written properly so the U.S. Supreme
Court would validate it.
the upcoming election. They decided not to support a presidential
candidate but would promote any dry candidates. Because of the
growing dissatisfaction with prohibition, both the Republican and
Democratic parties wanted to overhaul federal prohibition law,
differing only on the speed and the method. Wet members in both
parties demanded outright repeal of the 18th Amendment and turning
prohibition over to the states. The Democratic Party adopted two
anti-prohibition planks, one for the repeal of prohibition and the
other the immediate legalization of beer. Democratic Party vice
presidential candidate John Garner predicted the resolution to repeal
the 18th Amendment would come quickly in Congress.
The WCTU held its annual convention in San Francisco, with the
membership standing solidly behind prohibition and Hoover. The
organization opposed the return of real beer and wine, and any
legal modification of prohibition. It disagreed with the charges that
prohibition increased crime, lawlessness, corruption, and
debauchery. It countered by declaring that crime had decreased 35
to 40 percent from 1910 to 1927, with
drinking by college students on the
decline.
Franklin Roosevelt
The November 1932 election ushered in wet legislators who were
ready to repeal prohibition, with eager leadership coming from newly
elected President Roosevelt. A Turlock Daily Journal editorial
declared, “No one who lived through the old, pre-prohibition days
needs to be told that the shameless greed of the liquor interests in
those days was a force that worked
directly against the public interest.
Nor does anyone who can remember
what has happened since 1920 need
to be told that the bootlegging
industry created an utterly
intolerable situation. Any change
that fails to take both of these factors
into full consideration will not last.
The job of revision demands the
utmost in the way of intelligence and
fair-minded concern for the welfare
of the nation.” Nine more states had
voted to revoke their federal
prohibition enforcement laws.
In October 1931, the American
Federation of Labor held its
convention in Vancouver, British
Columbia, where a resolution was
passed demanding the legalization
of beer with 2¾ percent alcohol.
Another resolution before the
convention requested the repeal of
the 18 th Amendment and the
Volstead Act, which failed badly,
with members wanting to
concentrate first on the beer issue.
President Roosevelt Signing the 3.2 Beer Bill That He
The labor federation supported
There were now 100 House
Sponsored
Web Photo
beer tax to spur the nation towards
Republicans who were firmly behind
economic recovery. Also, unemployment would drop when workers repeal, adding to the growing numbers of Democratic pro-repeal
returned to the beer industry. It was calculated that the legalization advocates. Roosevelt was quoted in the Warm Springs [Florida]
of beer would bring $300 to $500 million in tax revenue. The National Mirror as saying, “respected citizens, leaders, men in public office
Women’s Committee asserted that to derive that amount of tax from have been forced to ‘drink wet’ and ‘vote dry’ to appease a group
beer, it would require men, women, and children to drink several that was trying to do good but wrought havoc.” In December 1932,
gallons weekly.
the Women’s National Committee for Law Enforcement, representing
ten million women, lobbied heavily against the legalization of beer,
Prohibition Opposition
stating it “would bring widespread drunkenness in its wake, imperil
The Democratic Party National Chairman John J. Raskob asked children, and enrich brewers at the expense of the nation’s moral
90,000 party contributors to fund an anti-prohibition campaign, to and economic welfare.” It joined other dry organizations in fighting
move the party towards a plank to repeal prohibition. A questionnaire the wet movement. The Women’s National Committee charged that
was mailed to Democrats to poll them on the prohibition issue. In beer had been the cause of 90 percent of drunkenness before
December 1931, the court trial commenced of Hoover’s brother-in- prohibition. It noted that medical representatives claimed that .05
law, C. Van Ness Leavitt, 57, who had been charged with liquor percent alcohol was a safe limit for any alcoholic beverage, but not
possession. Leavitt was arrested after he placed a paper sack 2.75 percent, the amount being considered.
containing a liquor bottle near the rear door of a grocery store in
Santa Monica. He admitted that he had consumed some of the WCTU calculated that brewers would make $800 million, while the
liquor in the store.
government would receive $200 million in tax if beer was legalized.
It declared, “These millions of dollars would be subtracted from
Leaders of the National Board of Prohibition and the Anti-Saloon expenditures for legitimate commodities, all kinds of businesses
League met in Washington, D.C. on September 7, 1932 to discuss would suffer. The masses would have only a limited amount to
———————— 200 ————————
spend, and if it is spent for liquor, it cannot be spent for food and
clothing.” On December 21, 1932, the House passed the Collier
Beer Bill, allowing 3.2 percent alcohol, by a vote of 225 to 161. The
Senate’s Judiciary Committee was busy writing the 21st Amendment
that would repeal the 18th Amendment.
Repeal Prohibition
Texas Democrat, U.S. Senator Sheppard, addressed the Senate on
January 16, 1933, the 13th anniversary of prohibition, asking it to
uphold the 18th Amendment, because it was “the loftiest peak the
march of man has reached,” while its repeal “would be the beginning
of the dismemberment of the soul of America.” He stated that its
repeal would impair economic recovery, with the repeal movement
being fully financed and driven by a wealthy few who wanted to
shift their tax burden onto the shoulders of the public.
Summer- Autumn 2010
to the United States and treachery to its institutions.” The NewsHerald had condemned the 18th Amendment as a law brought about
by war hysteria, led by the Anti-Saloon League and its cohorts,
being “forced down the throat of the nation” and “a dismal failure
as a solution to the liquor question.” The newspaper was
“repeatedly jeered at for keeping the flag of its convictions flying
in the face of the strong opposing dry gale.” The editorial remarked,
“Prohibition has been weighed in the balance and found wanting;
the day of its final doom draws neigh.”
On February 27th, an editorial appeared in the Turlock Daily Journal
concerning the repeal issue, commenting that though the intent of
prohibition was good, the results were not. It ushered in
“bootleggers, rumrunners, crooked cops, and shady speakeasies.”
The writer stated that the nation doesn’t want the return of old
saloons, writing, “We ought to be intelligent enough to find a system
that would do away with the evils of the present regime without
restoring the evils of the past. We want to remember that we have
two entirely distinct sets of
abuses to correct, and not just
one.”
An editorial in the Modesto News-Herald on January 27, 1933
supported repeal and turning
prohibition over to the states.
It quoted former President
Taft, who in 1918 commented
on federal prohibition: “The
3.2 Beer
business of manufacturing of
Roosevelt
took
the
liquor and beer will go out of
presidential oath on March 4,
the hands of the law-abiding
1933 and on March 13th sent a
members of the community
message to Congress to pass
and will be transferred to the
immediate legislation that
quasi-criminal class. The
would modify the Volstead
reaching out of the great
Act, allowing beer with 3.2
central power to brush the
percent alcohol. He stated, the
doorsteps of the local
beer bill would raise $150 to
communities, far removed
$200 million in federal tax
from Washington, will be
revenue and employ 500,000
irritating to such states and
workers, both badly needed to
communities and will put a
fight the Depression.
Beer Economics - A Profit Needs to Be Made
strain on the bond of the
Roosevelt declared, “I deem
Web Photo
Union.” The editor ends by
action at this time to be of the
remarking, “What is going on
highest importance.” The House passed the 3.2 beer legislation,
today is but an atrophy of all law enforcement in the United States, known as the Cullen-Harrison Bill, by a vote of 316 to 97. Some
directly traceable to the futility and folly of thrusting down on the wanted to set the percent of alcohol at 3.05, as the non-intoxicating
brows of local communities a crown of thorns of federal laws limit, but 3.2 was retained. Roosevelt signed the legislation on March
abhorrent to them?”
22nd with a broad grin, saying, “That’s done.” The law’s effective
date was set for April 7th. The manufacture and sale of 3.2 beer
On February 20, 1933, the House approved the 21st Amendment by would only be effective in wet areas. If a state, county, or city was
a bipartisan vote of 289 to 121, 15 votes more than required. It had dry, it still remained dry, until it was changed by those governments.
passed the Senate the week before. Presidential approval was not The dry forces led by the Anti-Saloon League announced that the
needed, but it required 36 of the 48 states to ratify it. When the Cullen-Harrison Act would be fought, because 3.2 percent was
House vote was announced by Speaker Garner, there was an intoxicating. The U.S. Bureau of Internal Revenue was set to tax $5
enormous burst of applause. The 21st Amendment was known as on every 31 gallons of 3.2 beer manufactured. On April 3rd, Michigan
the “Repeal Amendment,” in that it repealed the 18th Amendment.
was the first state to vote for the 21st Amendment.
Towards Sanity
On February 21st, an editorial appeared in the Modesto News-Herald
welcoming “a return to sanity” in regard to repealing prohibition,
stating, “The control of the liquor question will now go back to the
states where it always belonged.” The newspaper had always
opposed prohibition resulting in the criticism that it was “disloyal
According to federal attorneys, home brewers could make 3.2
percent beer beginning on April 7th but were responsible for a tax of
$5 per barrel. If a home brewer sells his product, then he was subject
to $1,000 yearly in tax. If the beer’s content was over 3.2 percent
alcohol, then he was in violation of the law. U.S. Attorney General
Cummings announced that all brewers needed to have government
———————— 201 ————————
permits to manufacture and sell beer, provided they hadn’t been
convicted of prohibition violations in the past 12 months.
Prohibition Ends
In June 1933, eight states voted to repeal prohibition, with eight
more expected to join them later in the month. F. Scott McBride,
Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, declared, “We are going
to fight as we have never fought before, and we are going to keep
the 18th amendment in the U.S. Constitution, where it belongs.” On
November 7, 1933, four states voted to repeal prohibition, Kentucky,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah, providing the two-thirds, 36 states,
needed to ratify the 21st Amendment. Still though, 29 states had
statewide dry laws, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcohol,
with the South and the Midwest being completely dry. But this
would change as dry laws soon would be repealed across the nation.
A November editorial in the Turlock Daily Journal commented,
“Repeal of the 18th Amendment arrived with a speed few people in
America thought possible, but does not simply mark the end of a
great experiment. It also marks the beginning of a new one, and it is
going to be very easy for us to make just as many mistakes with the
new as we did with the old. Education is probably the surest way to
pave the way for decency and self-control in the liquor problem.”
With the end of federal prohibition coming in December, states now
had to tackle state liquor law issues. Most states wanted laws
where beer and wine could be served publicly with meals, such as
at hotels, restaurants, and clubs. Wet states wanted to permit the
sale of packaged hard liquor to take home to consume. There was
universal agreement though that the states didn’t want the return
of the old saloon. Most Americans were in favor of the strict
regulation of the manufacturing and sale of hard liquor to eliminate
bootleggers and speakeasies. On December 5, 1933, prohibition
formally ended, with Congress approving the ratification by the
states of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 18th
Amendment was now repealed.
It’s a Cold World
On November 8, 1923, this editorial appeared in the Turlock
Daily Journal that described the effect of modern technology,
especially the automobile, on society. It bears reprinting here:
Our Social Life
Are we social enough with our neighbors and the stranger within
our gates? This is a question to weigh and ponder. In these
days of modern hustle and bustle, of high-power automobiles,
we have become independent units in the community. We go
about our business in a selfish way. We may not think so, but
we do, absolutely. We forget that there are others all about us
who would like to speak to us if they consider it proper. They do
not want to disturb our train of thought or intrude where they
are not welcome can we feel the same way ourselves.
Not many years ago every man you met had a good word, a
pleasant smile and a happy salutation. Today we pass without
Summer- Autumn 2010
even a nod of recognition, unless we are well acquainted. If we ride
out in an automobile we hold our heads high and do not see the
people we pass, or if we do we are totally indifferent to them. The
time was, when horse-drawn vehicles were in vogue, that we took
notice of everybody we met, and the chances are ten to one that
we invited the pedestrian to ride, if he or she happened to be going
in the same direction that we were. Today we pass them unnoticed.
We have been “automobilized,” and we have become haughty and
cold. We have drifted into a little world, all our own, and have
closed the door after us. Our neighbors have done much the same.
They are not disposed to use a crowbar or a jimmy to pry us out of
our hiding places. They think that if we want to avoid them they
will hold aloof from us, and so there is a coolness, the frigidity of
which is driving us farther and farther apart. This is what is happening among the people who were once social, courteous and
helpful to each other. The breach in our social system is continually widening. We are drifting apart, and the wider the breach the
greater the coolness.
Today we meet old-time friends up on the street and pass them by
without a word of greeting. We go away and return after many
days, weeks or years, and are scarcely recognized. Why this coolness? Is it bashfulness, a false sense of propriety, or is it that we
have become so wrapped up in ourselves that we have no room in
our minds for a thought of others, their joys or sorrows? How
much happier we would all be if we could crack the ice that has
frozen around us and come out into the sunlight where the warm
rays may thaw out our congealed arteries and let the life-blood of
human kindness flow gently and warmly from our hearts to every
extremity of our being. How much happier would we be in knowing
that our presence in any community was a source of joy; that our
presence at a public meeting, a social gathering in the church, the
club on the street, was a pleasure to those with whom we come in
contact. How much better would we all feel if we felt that all were
interested in us and we in them.
The trouble with us is that we are losing community interest, we
are becoming stiff and ossified, we are losing the faculty of forming friendships that we need and that the community needs. We
are too much like turtles, drawing ourselves back into our own
shells and avoiding each other. The old-time neighborly spirit is
dead within us. We cannot act in unison for community interest.
SOURCES
Ashbury, Herbert. The Great Illusion; Behr, Edward.
Prohibition: Thirteen Years That Changed America;
Clark, Norman H. Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition; Kyvig, David E. Repealing National Prohibition; Merz, Charles. The Dry Decade; Nishi, Dennie. Prohibition; Rumbarger, John J.
Profits, Power, and Prohibition; Spencer, Dorcas James.
A History of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union;
Stelzle, Charles. Why Prohibition!; and Walker, Clifford
James. One Eye Closed, the Other Red: The California
Bootlegging Years.
———————— 202 ————————
Part 2A - Temperance and Prohibition in California History
From Wet to Dry and Back to Wet Once Again
California’s Control of Alcoholic Beverage Usage
Gold Rush Era
With the Gold Rush came young American men, whose pastime
largely included the consuming of alcoholic beverages. Writing in
1853, J.A. Benton noted in his book California Pilgrim: “Ninetenths of our population, male and female, sip, drink, or guzzle. The
learned and the stolid, old men and mere boys, the rich men, the
penniless, and even the prisoners, all drink from morning till night,
and from night till morning. Such quantities of fluid, taken daily
into the system, and if weren’t for milk and water, would destroy the
constitution in a few years.” Most feared the disability “delirium
tremens,” or “D.T.s” which is defined by Webster as “a violent
delirium with tremors that is induced by excessive and prolonged
use of alcoholic liquors.” However, it was an American custom for
men to generally remain indifferent towards alcohol consumption.
California was well-known for its wholesale lawlessness, where
alcohol touched every level of society. This was especially true in
San Francisco, where it was reported in 1855 that the state’s
governor could be found seated at the Blue Wing Saloon with
California Supreme Court justices and superior court judges, “sipping
sherry cobblers.” The San Francisco based newspaper Daily
California Chronicle commented on August 18, 1855 that the courts
needed something more than judges who had “bleared eyes and
fetid breath, something more than the fag ends of drunken revels.”
The bane of society though was the saloon. In 1852, San Francisco
had one saloon for every 100 people, which amounted to 350
saloons, 18 gambling establishments, and 27 dance halls, where
alcohol was consumed at an alarming rate. It was claimed that the
greatest contributor to saloon drinking was the chivalrous custom
of not imbibing alone. To stimulate the wet orgy, saloons quite
generously offered “free lunch,” such as, crackers, cheese, soup,
and meats to loosen up the drinking palate. Many who were less
financially endowed spaced their drinking bouts throughout the
day at “free lunch” saloons to save on their food bill. It was not
uncommon for saloons in San Francisco and elsewhere to remain
open for 24 hours. Saloons in the mining regions were housed
mostly in tents and were available for continuous partaking of liquor,
where “drinking bouts” could endure for two or three days. Much
of this activity was done to unwind or forget, because mining was
exhausting and success a matter of chance. The young men also
were lonely for female companionship, having needs for the opposite
sex that could be doused by bottle of booze.
The epidemic of drunkenness in California, and the immorality
surrounding it, became the paramount concern of Protestant
ministers and Catholic priests, but there were not nearly enough
clergy to combat the problem to any serious degree. At times, the
denominations teamed up to fight the scourge, with Methodists
and Baptists battling intemperance together, being joined by
Congregational and Presbyterian forces. A Methodist minister
traveling in the mining region in 1855 found very few active
Christians. He did find though a number of Christian women who
met collectively, discussing intemperance and its effect on family
and community, with their chief weapon being prayer.
The first mass temperance meeting in California was held on January
5, 1849 in San Francisco, with 18 men signing a pledge of abstinence.
It is fitting that the first man to sign the pledge was so inebriated
that he had problems navigating from his seat to the table. A branch
of the national organization, Sons of Temperance, was chartered in
San Francisco in September 1850, followed shortly with a chapter in
Sacramento. By 1854, California had 40 branches of the organization,
having a total membership of 2,500 men. Its purpose was to halt
alcohol consumption by males of all ages, through the use of oaths,
testimony, and accountability, not unlike Christian church practices.
Protestant churches actively supported the Sons of Temperance,
allowing the branches to meet at local churches. Ministers were
members, using the pulpit and church newsletters to announce
temperance meetings. In 1854, another temperance group was
organized, the Independent Order of Good Templars, but this one
permitted women membership, soon replacing the Sons of
Temperance.
The California temperance movement needed laws to put teeth into
its crusade. In 1852, the Sons of Temperance petitioned the California
legislature to enact a law similar to the Maine Liquor Law that
controlled alcohol usage. In 1853, legislation was introduced in the
California State Assembly, entitled “Suppression of Drinking Houses
and Tippling Shops,” but it failed by a vote of 14 to 22. This was
only the beginning of the perennial battle to pass state temperance
legislation. The California wine industry, responsible for much of
the state’s wealth, waged war against temperance, especially with
its strong Sacramento lobby.
In 1854, state political parties began to take stances concerning
temperance, with Democrats and Know-Nothings considering
temperance planks in their political platforms. Many California
Democrats were Irish and German, who were opposed to
temperance, wanting to keep their beer-drinking custom alive. In
the 1854 election, a statewide temperance referendum failed by a
vote of 21,891 to 27,414. The election attracted 97,000 voters, with
only half casting ballots on the referendum. It wasn’t until 1914 that
another temperance referendum appeared on the state ballot. In
———————— 203 ————————
1854, temperance ordinances were adopted in Sacramento and San
Francisco, while Los Angeles voted heavily against temperance. In
later years, this would flip-flop, with the north voting liberal and
the south voting conservative. During the 1850s, slavery became a
major issue in the state, pushing temperance far into the background
for a decade.
Civil War Era
California’s Sons of Temperance membership declined to a dismal
659 by 1866, with its chapters plummeting from 200 to 28. From 1868
to 1870, Good Templars’ chapters in California dropped from 301 to
141, with many of the latter being located in small towns. A chief
cause for the decrease was the unwillingness of the organization to
join with local Christian churches, even though individual clergy
were members and principal speakers at chapter meetings.
Intemperance was a question of morality with Christian churches,
because of alcohol’s detrimental effect on the body, mind, and spirit,
with the heart of the evil being the saloon. The Good Templars’
widely-circulated periodical, The Rescue, had become a major organ
of temperance information. Catholics remained removed from the
Protestant temperance movement, having their own organizations,
most notably at a national level.
Women’s Temperance Crusade
The spring and summer of 1874 saw major temperance activity in
the state, with the chartering of local chapters of national
organizations, such as, the Prohibition Party and the Women’s
Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Temperance legislation was
introduced in Sacramento, but failed to gain support, except for the
important local option bill. Local option laws were enacted
throughout the nation, allowing counties and cities to decide by
vote if they wanted to be wet (pro-liquor) or dry (non-alcoholic).
The local option elections brought fierce competition, generating
significant fanfare of speeches, parades, music, and food fests.
Women were the most zealous promoters of temperance in California,
because they had the most to gain. Assemblages of women visited
saloons in Sacramento and San Francisco, purposely being
nuisances, with dramatics of wailing, oratory, and loud lengthy
prayers in an effort to close the saloons. In San Jose, food, coffee,
tea, and lemonade were distributed to passing voters by temperance
workers, urging a favorable vote on the local option referendum.
Sallie Hart, a powerful speaker for temperance and women’s suffrage,
created such a commotion with her address in San Jose that a riot
broke out in an effort to silence her. The California Supreme Court
in September 1874 ruled the state’s local option law was
unconstitutional “on the grounds that it legally delegated lawmaking
authority to the townships, and that it presupposed for the towns
and townships, governmental and police powers which had never
been conferred upon them.” That was the end of California’s local
option laws at this time, a powerful blow to the state’s temperance
movement.
State temperance groups remained separated from suffrage
organizations to concentrate on their own goals. In November 1874,
the Good Templars and the State Temperance Alliance met and
agreed to form a state political party, the Temperance Reform Party.
Summer- Autumn 2010
That year W.E. Lovett was the party’s choice for governor, who
received only 356 votes statewide. In 1878, the Reform Party
launched its official publication, California Voice, which for a time
was the chief organ of the temperance movement in California.
Another California prohibition political party was founded, the
Prohibition Home Protection Party, which at times was fiercely
radical, but only garnering 6,432 votes for its gubernatorial candidate
in 1886.
WCTU was the most powerful arm in the California temperance
movement, because of its staunch support by Christian churches.
It concentrated on reform work, lobbying politicians, and educating
youth about alcohol abuse. It launched an anti-tobacco campaign
informing adults about the hazards of smoking and chewing
tobacco. WCTU opened a number of coffee houses and reading
rooms in such communities as Modesto, Petaluma, Salinas, and
San Jose. In 1882, a San Francisco WCTU coffee shop served six
hundred people daily and operated a rooming house for women
only.
Protestant Influx
California was largely cosmopolitan and Catholic, according to the
1900 U.S. Census. The state was 58 percent Catholic, while the
nation as a whole was 37 percent. Los Angeles was 56 percent
Protestant and San Francisco 15 percent, being significantly
Catholic. Northern California still had the larger population, but the
“Pullman migration” began at this time, as Protestants traveled in
droves by train to southern California. Protestants brought with
them a crusading interest in temperance, joining anti-alcohol and
anti-saloon organizations. In 1880, southern California had 7.3
percent of California’s population, increasing to 17 percent by 1900.
It was noted in an alcohol beverage periodical that “the southern
portion of this State is a perfect hot bed of ideas adverse to the
liquor trade.”
Another phenomenon that affected the temperance movement was
the growth of urban populations, giving rise to more saloons and
liquor outlets. San Francisco was a haven of foreigners, with recent
immigrants coming from continental European nations, bringing
their customs of alcoholic consumption. The battle for temperance
in California was now even more protracted than ever, pitting
southern Protestants against northern Catholics. Protestantdominated WCTU in California had a Department of Heredity, a
Department of Foreign Work, and a Department of German Work to
identify cultural characteristics and to intervene when possible to
correct alcohol drinking habits.
One method of enforcing temperance in communities was to sell
town lots with deeds having a temperance clause that prohibited
alcohol on the property. Pasadena was founded by temperate Indiana
settlers, resulting in a saloon-free community, but a grocer decided
to stock liquor, leading to a legal battle. In 1887, the California
Supreme Court upheld Pasadena’s ordinance banning the sale of
liquor. This came on the heels of an 1886 ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court that local option ordinances were constitutional. In southern
California, there were 50 towns that banned the sale of liquor, while
in northern California the number was far less, but there were eight
———————— 204 ————————
dry counties. It was not uncommon for towns to be wet and counties
dry.
Generally, rural areas voted for temperance, being more conservative
and Christian-minded, while larger urban regions favored alcohol,
being liberal. Notably in cities, alcohol was sold not only in saloons
but in restaurants, hotels, and drugstores. Because of this,
temperance organizations extended their crusade to include all
establishments in the alcohol trade. This broadening of the
temperance battleground led to the rising growth of the mass
temperance movement, resulting in federal prohibition.
Another temperance issue was the Sunday sale of liquor at saloons.
In 1881, the California Supreme Court ruled that ordinances closing
saloons on Sunday were constitutional, which led to a massive
protest by saloons throughout the state. Saloon owners kept their
establishments open on Sundays in protest. Thousands were jailed,
causing them to form the California Protection Association. The
organization argued that saloons had their place in society by
providing a meeting place for men, resulting in long friendships
and sometimes business partnerships, along with providing lighting,
heating, and snack food for their patrons. Lighting and heating at
home could be expensive. It was not uncommon for a saloonkeeper
to loan money to anyone of suitable character, while extending
credit for liquor purchases. The California Protection Association
called these important fringe benefits.
In 1888, California had 12,000 saloons, which amounted to one
saloon for every 91 inhabitants or every 16 voters, with San
Francisco having 3,300 with liquor licenses, the most in the state. In
the 1890s, the California Protection Association combated
temperance forces in courts, elections, and in the capital. In three
years, 1894-1897, it had beaten back many of the smaller temperance
organizations, while having a vast number of local temperance
ordinances revoked. By 1898, California had only one county and
ten towns that were still dry. The association’s mightiest foe was
the Anti-Saloon League.
Anti-Saloon League
It became necessary for political power that temperance
organizations unite under one banner, which was the Anti-Saloon
League, founded in 1895. In the next ten years in California, the
league would reclaim lost temperance territory in the state, especially
by Progressive Party victories, which it sponsored. In the decades
prior, the Christian churches had fought intemperance through weak
organizations, but eventually joined the WCTU crusade, because
of its Christian affiliation and its successes. Christian churches
though were not completely on the temperance bandwagon as
discovered in questionnaires distributed in California in the 1890s.
Questionnaires were sent to 100 churches, with 33 replying and
only three churches signing a total abstinence pledge. In 1895,
Congregational, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches formed the
Council for the Suppression of the Saloon. It linked up in 1898 with
the Anti-Saloon League. Even so, the Prohibition Party, WCTU,
and the Anti-Saloon League remained separate political entities,
because of various minor issues and jealousies. The Prohibition
Party wanted to go beyond just banning saloons, while the others
Summer- Autumn 2010
remained one-issue organizations.
The city of Berkeley had a dry ordinance that prohibited social
drinking in private residences, which in 1900 the California Supreme
Court surprisingly upheld, but the city’s marshal refused to enforce
such a strict law, causing city trustees to revoke the ordinance.
This example illustrates the problems that plagued temperance and
prohibition. It became a question of the degree of abstinence that
troubled the unification of anti-alcohol forces. The Prohibition Party
and the Anti-Saloon League often ran separate candidates on the
ballot as in 1909 in Los Angeles, undermining a victory for
temperance. In 1910, California had five dry counties, while over 50
incorporated cities and 180 towns had dry ordinances, a significant
increase from the decade before.
Saloon owners in the north, centering on San Francisco, had
problems unifying as a political force, because the liquor business
was highly competitive and clandestine. Political bosses ran San
Francisco, with saloons becoming hotbeds of crooked politics.
Brewers formed an independent organization, as did wholesale liquor
vendors, distillers, and wine producers. Leaders of the liquor
industry organized the Knights of the Royal Arch in San Francisco
that would become a statewide alliance. Its aim was to cleanup the
liquor industry, making it crime-free and regulated by the state. The
Royal Arch fought an uphill battle though, because the Anti-Saloon
League had become a major force in the state, being bolstered by
the reform movement of the Progressive Party.
Progressive Movement
The Anti-Saloon League had the power of a major political party,
having ties with the Progressive Movement. The league was
strongly Christian, with its first and second superintendents, E.S.
Chapman and Daniel M. Gandier, being Presbyterian ministers.
Gandier wanted to expand the league’s scope beyond its crusade
against saloons. He counseled California’s Governor Hiram
Johnson, a progressive, concerning full temperance and roamed
the legislative halls in Sacramento, promoting temperance causes.
His activity caused politicians, businessmen, and newspapermen
to consider temperance a major issue of the day. Helping him in the
effort was Lieutenant Governor A.J. Wallace, who was a Methodist
minister and a former league officer.
Los Angeles was strongly temperate, while San Francisco’s graft
trials for the prosecution of criminal political activity in the city,
drove the populace towards muckraking, aligning with progressives
and temperance forces. The quest throughout the state was “good
government,” with its proponents being known as “goo-goos.”
There were wet progressives though, such as C.K. McClatchy,
editor of the Sacramento Bee, whose editorials ironically had
encouraged voters to approve Sacramento’s local option referendum,
banning the sale of alcohol. He wasn’t after the elimination of liquor
but the cleaning up of its industry. He urged legitimate liquor
businessmen to reform their industry to hold off the prohibition
momentum.
It was at this time that Congress was seriously considering a
prohibition amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Californian Chester
———————— 205 ————————
Rowell, who ran for U.S. Senate in 1914, felt that a prohibition
amendment would be “immoral, undemocratic, and impossible of
enforcement.” But, he, like others, began to change their viewpoint
concerning alcohol usage, after hearing arguments concerning the
loss of man-hours and inefficiency in the work place, because of
liquor. Local businessmen wanted the local saloons removed to
provide a decent city that would attract customers and
complementary businesses. The automobile and improved roads in
the state had an enormous impact on the spread of the liquor
industry, providing a wider market and quicker delivery.
Summer- Autumn 2010
The Wright Act had been heavily sponsored by the California Grape
Protective Association. The organization wanted to protect the
grape industry outside the realm of winemaking, e.g., table grapes,
grape juice, grape concentrate, and raisin production. The Wright
Act supported both the federal government’s Volstead Act and the
18th Amendment. The only complaint about the Wright Act was it
intermingled state and federal responsibilities, which many thought
would create enormous problems, which it didn’t. One significant
feature of the act was to allow local governments to retain prohibition
fines collected by their courts, but of course, local enforcement
cost money to function.
Prohibition
The Prohibition Party considered the 1914 election of major
Prohibition Enforcement
progressive candidates a tremendous victory. There were two There were problems enforcing federal prohibition in California,
prohibition propositions on the California ballot in 1916, with both because of the state’s immense size, varied terrain, lengthy coastline,
failing. One wanted outright
and loose border with Mexico.
prohibition, losing at the polls
The state was labeled a
538,200 to 436,639, while the
“bootlegger’s paradise” by
other
featured
partial
California State Senator M.B.
prohibition, being defeated
Harris and others. Prohibition
505,783 to 461,039. Seeing the
generally lacked public
number of prohibition votes,
support in the cities, except
the Anti-Saloon League
Los Angeles, which was still
decided to extend its program
predominantly
dry.
to fully sponsoring prohibition.
Sacramento and San Francisco
In 1918, a prohibition
opposed
prohibition,
proposition was rejected by
remaining wet as always. A San
California voters by 30,845
Francisco assemblyman
remarked that everyone was
votes. In December 1917, the
violating the U.S. Constitution
league’s national office became
and rejoicing in it.
directly responsible for
spurring Congress to pass the
One Sacramentan wrote to the
18 th Amendment. Now it
needed ratification by the
State Law Enforcement
Elegant California Speakeasy Web Photo
states. Since Californians had
League:
The law is not enforced. Our city
difficulty approving a state
is as wet as ever. Many open saloons are running. I went and
prohibition amendment, maybe voters would accept a national
informed the dry party here, but nothing was done. I played the
constitutional amendment instead.
18th Amendment
In 1919, the California legislature approved the 18th Amendment, by
a vote of 25 to 15 in the State Senate, and three days later in the
State Assembly, 48 to 28. Having been one of the wettest states in
the union, California became the twenty-fourth state to approve
federal prohibition.
California legislature also passed the Wright Prohibition Enforcement
Law in 1921, known as the “Wright Act” or the “little Volstead Act,”
to provide authority for state courts and local agencies to enforce
federal prohibition law. The federal government did not have enough
agents to enforce prohibition, requiring state and local governmental
help. This was substantiated by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
the 18th Amendment required the uniting of national and state
administrative agencies to enforce federal prohibition. California
voters narrowly approved the Wright Act as a referendum in
November 1922, with it taking effect in 1923.
sleuth and discovered several stills and informed our people,
but they are still doing business. Your dry agents come up here
and rake in a fine sum of hush money and leave after a few good
wine suppers, and the violation of the 18th Amendment goes on.
I really believe the 18th Amendment was brought about to create
a good paying position for a lot of lazy politicians at the expense
of the public.
Violating Prohibition
Prohibition was primarily aimed at the cities, where the saloons ran
continuously. It was there that most of the new immigrants lived.
Prohibition targeted the foreign-born and first generation Americans,
who still practiced European drinking customs. Rural America was
commonly dry through local option ordinances, with the automobile
being the major link to the liquor trade.
At first, it was felt that prohibition had cut alcohol consumption by
three-fourths, if not by nine-tenths in some locations in the California.
Arrests in the major cities dropped dramatically, with Los Angeles
registering 18,629 arrests for drunkenness in 1917 to 2,621 in 1920,
———————— 206 ————————
while San Francisco recorded 15,105 arrests for drunkenness in
1917 and 1,814 in 1920. Two years later, prohibition crime increased,
with San Francisco arresting 7,261 for drunkenness in 1922 and
8,069 in 1924. Smuggling, bootlegging, and moonshining were
making prohibition enforcement nearly impossible. The quality of
liquor worsened as prohibition continued, because pre-prohibition
stock vanished, being replaced by bootleg concoctions that were
at times less than drinkable. The state had 69 deaths due to alcohol
poisoning in 1921, rising to 418 in 1926.
Drinking habits during prohibition did change though. Prior to
prohibition, noontime drinking at the local establishments turned a
restaurant or hotel into a riotous occasion. Those establishments
were far quieter and duller during prohibition, and now there were
hidden flasks and
phone numbers of
local bootleggers in
coat pockets. It
became a thrill to
violate prohibition,
especially among
the younger set.
Federal agents
raided speakeasies
and
gambling
joints, placing the
prohibition
offenders in jail, to
await fines or
sentencing.
Prohibition agents
could be bought
though, normally
being paid to
ignore bootleg
operations. They
would
arrest
California Liquor Still Destroyed by
a
m
a
t
e
u r
Agents with an Axe Walker Photo
bootleggers to give
the impression that they were doing their duty. Local law
enforcement officials could be bought as well, ignoring speakeasies,
moonshine operations, and smuggling. It was the U.S. district
attorneys and federal marshals who played a major role in
rooting out the big-time operators.
During prohibition, California liquor licensing increased
substantially for retailers and wholesalers supplying medicinal
alcohol. Such licenses were granted to druggists, physicians,
manufacturers, and transportation companies. Before prohibition,
northern California had 1,939 liquor licenses for medicinal alcohol,
which increased during prohibition to 2,500 druggists, 7,000
physicians, 12 breweries, and 100 transportation companies, which
made prohibition enforcement extremely difficult.
During prohibition, gin sold for $2.50 a fifth, brandy and grappa
(distilled wine) for $6 a bottle, and wine for $3.50 a gallon, while
Summer- Autumn 2010
scotch, bourbon, and cognac were purchased for $90 to $125 a
case.
Even though prohibition officials could be bought, law enforcement
was still effective, as in the case of Los Angeles in 1929, where
police confiscated 52,101 gallons of liquor, 37,339 gallons of mash,
Cellar Storage of California Bootleg Wine
Walker Photo
268 automobiles, and 24 liquor stills, while arresting 2,160 prohibition
violators. WCTU continued its battle against alcohol by actively
supporting prohibition in communities and waging local campaigns
on sobriety. The wine industry was nearly decimated by prohibition,
with large acreages of vineyards being removed. Normally, the
manufacturing of homemade beer and wine, even if over .05 percent
alcohol, was overlooked, unless it was being sold or it was becoming
a nuisance to the community. It was difficult to retrain those whose
traditional cultures combined food with alcoholic beverages. A San
Francisco newspaper reporter wrote, “The Italian quarter revealed
wine presses drying in the sun in front of many homes. The air was
heavy with the pungent odor of fermenting vats in garages and
basements.”
Ending Prohibition
California’s 1930 election saw the retention of a dry majority, of
three to one, in the California legislature. Prohibitionists were elated,
but two years later, their balloon burst with the repeal of the Wright
Act, by a state vote of two-to-one. The next year, the 18th Amendment
was repealed, by a vote of three-to-one, ending prohibition.
California’s governor released hundreds of prohibition violators
who were serving time. The prohibition movement in the state
collapsed, with some faithful continuing the temperance battle.
Within a few months, the alcohol beverage industry was in full
bloom, but now it was better controlled as a result of the prohibition
experiment.
———————— 207 ————————
Part 2B - Temperance and Prohibition in California History
News About Federal Prohibition in California
Found in Stanislaus County Newspapers
T
his article was written strictly from local newspapers, mostly
the Modesto Bee, Modesto Morning Herald, Modesto NewsHerald, and Turlock Daily Journal. These were the sources read
daily by county residents providing them information concerning
prohibition in California, to enable them to form opinions and take
positions in regard to federal prohibition application in the state.
Romantic Prohibition
In March 1920, it was revealed in a newspaper report that there
were more marriages since prohibition began. Some argued that it
was because more money was being saved and spent on domestic
products than being wasted on alcoholic beverages. Also, the male
worker was not stopping at the local saloon or tavern after work.
Not only did he have more money, he didn’t have the odious whiskey
breath to offend his wife or girlfriend, making matrimony a more
appealing proposition. In August, the Anti-Saloon League boasted
that businessmen who were opposed to prohibition are now
supporting it, stating, “From the cold-blooded business viewpoint
prohibition is the greatest thing that ever hit the country, because
of it, millions of dollars are being spent to furnish American homes,
which formerly went to buy liquor.”
Wine Grapes
Statistics revealed that California hops and wine grape growers
were becoming richer, receiving double the price, because they
now shipped their products to Europe, where the European War
had devastated agricultural land. Hops were selling for $1 per pound,
whereas in the previous year, they sold for 15¢ to 20¢. In September,
it was reported that the state’s grape crop had produced $130 million
thus far, whereas it was $76 million a year earlier. Wine grape prices
were running $120 to $160 a ton, whereas in 1919, it had been $30 to
$70. It was anticipated that the entire California wine grape crop
would be purchased for winemaking in the state or in the East,
mostly for home winemaking and governmentally contracted
medicinal and sacramental wine. Many consumers bought dried
grapes, soaked and fermented them, producing wine. Prohibition
permitted the manufacture of grape juice and grape syrup at home
or commercially. The Viticulture Division at the University of
California reported that 1.5 million gallons of grape syrup would be
produced during 1920, finding markets at grocery stores and ice
cream shops.
Harris Referendum
The state’s November ballot featured the Harris Referendum. This
was an earlier version of the Wright Act, which California would
pass later. The Harris Referendum permitted state and local
governments to enforce the 18th Amendment and the federal Volstead
Act. California had an allocation of only 27 federal agents to fight
prohibition in the entire state, thereby needing support from state
and local authorities. An editorial in the Turlock Daily Journal on
October 13, 1920 urged support for the Harris Referendum, noting
that “All state elected officials from the governor on down are in
favor of the Harris bill. All major political and industrial organizations
are in favor of the bill. People don’t want lawlessness.” The Harris
Referendum lost by a margin of 80,000 votes, causing the criticism
that the prohibitionists relaxed their effort after the 18th Amendment
was ratified. Stanislaus County approved the Harris Referendum
though, with a vote count of 6,733 to 3,579. Warren G. Harding won
the election for U.S. president, which was considered a victory by
prohibitionists. The majority of county voters had cast ballots for
Harding. During his campaign he declared, “He would use whatever
power he possessed to prevent reestablishment of intoxicating
liquors.” Harding and his cronies were known to imbibe liquor freely
and passionately.
Homemade
Home brewers and vintners drew some criticism in regard to the
quality of their product. It was thought by some that homemade
brew was so poisonous that it would simply kill off the producers,
or its taste so repugnant that it would force them to quit making the
rubbish. It was also thought that since the brewing and fermenting
process was so expensive, messy, and tedious, it would end home
experimentation. One critic commented, “The novelty of home
brewing will end soon enough.”
Commercial
In 1922, California had shipped 43,884 railroad cars of grapes to the
East. In October 1923, it was announced by state authorities that
central California had already shipped 29,984 railroad cars of grapes
to the East, which was 1,500 cars more than the previous year. In
1923, the state had already manufactured 40 million gallons of wine
by October, which was twice as much as 1922. California wineries
could produce as much wine as they wanted, store it, but could
only sell it if prohibition was repealed or modified for wine. Onefourth of manufactured wine was legally sold through federal
government permits for medicinal and sacramental purposes.
Prohibition allowed home winemakers to manufacture up to 200
gallons of fruit juices each year. Any fermented beverages still had
to be limited to .05 percent alcohol. It was found that much of the
homemade fruit juices ended up as bootlegged wine, causing the
U.S. Treasury Department in November 1925, to revoke all permits
for homemade fruit juices. In California alone, this amounted to
45,000 permits.
1926
Prohibition’s chief investigator on the Pacific Coast was Elf Offedale,
who commented in May 1926 that “Virtually all liquor west of the
———————— 208 ————————
Rockies was smuggled in from Canada or Mexico by boat.” The
liquor in question was not moonshine but quality liquor that was
manufactured legitimately in Canada and taxed by the Canadian
government.
The repeal of prohibition, especially the repeal of California’s Wright
Act, was growing in popularity in the state. Several business and
professional men in San Francisco were contributing funds for a
drive to place the repeal on the November 1926 ballot. They needed
90,000 signatures to do so. They claimed it a “lie” that intoxication
began after a beverage had .05 percent alcohol.
It was projected that California would produce 418,000 tons of wine
grapes in 1926, an increase over the previous year’s production of
395,000 tons. It was estimated that the state’s entire grape crop
would be 2,159,000 tons, while in 1925, it was 1,817,000 tons. It
would take over 76,000 railroad cars to ship the 1926 harvest to the
East.
It was reported by the California Board of Health that since
prohibition began, there had been 783 deaths caused by acute
alcoholism and poisoned liquor. In July 1926, 46 deaths had already
occurred, while 1925 had a total of 161 deaths. Winery owner,
Matilda Foppiano in Healdsburg had the U.S. marshal dump 80,000
gallons of her wine, because she didn’t want to pay taxes on it, and
also because the wine was becoming sour. The marshal’s department
poured the wine onto her field, because there wasn’t a creek, sewer,
or ditch on the property. This caused a major traffic jam, when
passersby saw the dumping and smelled the wine. Cars were lined
up on both sides of the road for a half mile, while their owners
sampled the spilt wine. This resulted in several arrests for
drunkenness, leaving abandoned cars along the roadway until their
owners were sober.
In November 1926, a change took place in the administration of
federal prohibition in northern California. Samuel I. Johnson replaced
Ned M. Green as federal prohibition chief in northern California and
Nevada, because Green had been suspended after being accused
of using seized liquor for personal use. On December 22, 1926, Green
was acquitted in just 16 minutes by a federal court in San Francisco.
After the trial, he commented, “Prohibition is an unpopular and an
unwanted thing, and I have no desire to be identified with its
enforcement.” W.W. Anderson replaced Johnson, and a while later,
E.R. Bohner, who served as a prohibition administrator in Boston
and New York, succeeded him.
A U.S. district judge in San Francisco ruled that liquor seized in an
illegal prohibition raid had to be returned to the owner and couldn’t
be confiscated again by the government. On November 3, 1926,
Californians voted against repealing the Wright Act by 63,617 votes;
therefore, the state’s prohibition law remained in effect.
In Manteca, on December 16, 1926, C.T. Holt, a federal prohibition
agent from San Francisco, was shot in the stomach by Manteca
turkey farmer, John P. Berg. Holt and two other agents were searching
Berg’s premises at night seeking illicit liquor, when Berg heard noises
outside and shot at the dark figures. Fortunately, Holt’s wound
Summer- Autumn 2010
wasn’t serious. A search of Berg’s property found no trace of
bootlegging.
Governmental statistics reported that for 1926 San Francisco had
28 deaths from poisoned bootlegged liquor. Los Angeles had 14;
Sacramento, 10; San Diego, 5; and Fresno, 1. Alameda and Contra
Costa counties had 7 deaths combined. A liquor still exploded near
Hayward, on John Orlando’s ranch, killing two of the three operators.
The distillery had the capability of producing up to 3,000 gallons of
alcohol every 24 hours. It was a significant investment of $100,000.
Grapes
A representative of the Fruit Products Department of the University
of California reported in September 1928 at a meeting of the California
Vineyardists Association that the department was developing new
products and more marketing outlets for grapes. California Governor
Young asked Californians to observe September 23-29 as “Grape
Week,” stating that the state’s prosperity depended heavily upon
grape sales. He asked the nation to eat grapes for nutritional and
health value. There was concern that California was producing too
many grapes, because the Eastern markets were saturated.
According to state authorities, the San Joaquin Valley in 1928 had
491,000 acres in vineyards, with the state’s total being 640,000 acres.
Fresno County had 224,670 acres, Kern 22,133, Kings 17,866, Madera
30,236, Merced 25,522, San Joaquin 59,706, Stanislaus 26,945, and
Tulare 86,000. In December 1928, 55,000 acres of vineyards were
undergoing removal in the San Joaquin Valley, primarily because of
overproduction and lower grape prices. Much of the acreage was
being replanted into cotton. In September 1929, the San Joaquin
Valley Tourist and Travel Association, a non-profit organization,
reported that the valley was at the height of its prosperity, especially
in agriculture. The valley’s 125 different agricultural crops were
receiving good market prices, with an agricultural empire developing
that could result in the valley being one of the wealthiest sections
of the nation.
Politics
In September 1930, California Federation of Labor met in Marysville,
passing a resolution against prohibition, calling it a “vicious and
unjust law.” The organization didn’t want the return of saloons, but
advocated for the legalization of sensible alcoholic beverages.
California’s Republican Party didn’t address prohibition at its 1930
convention, while the Democrats were split on the issue. The state’s
Democratic Party Chairman Zachary Taylor Malaby of Pasadena
was a wet supporter, while the Democratic nominee for governor,
Milton K. Young of Pasadena, was dry. At the convention, a wet
plank in the party’s political platform was narrowly defeated by the
delegates. The division in the state’s Democratic Party was
significant, causing Young to remark that he would run for governor
on his own if the party deserted him. He was resoundingly defeated
by Republican candidate James Rolph, 422,862 to 121,882 in
statewide voting.
In September 1931, the California Highway Patrol ordered its
patrolmen to immediately contact district attorneys when suspects
were arrested for drunk driving. Intoxication behind the wheel had
———————— 209 ————————
become a serious problem and a chief concern. This order would
enable district attorneys to collect information instantly on each
person enabling them to prosecute the case quicker.
In December 1931, a statewide farmers’ convention was held in
Sacramento, with the attendees denouncing prohibition as severely
crippling to California farmers. Grape growers of the Napa-Sonoma
region and the grain farmers of the Central Valley demanded a
showdown on prohibition,
requesting at least a modification of
the Volstead Act to increase alcohol
content of beer and wine. U.S.
Congresswoman from California
Florence P. Kahn stated, “The
American people have weighed
prohibition in the balance – the
good and the bad – and found it
wanting.”
Summer- Autumn 2010
3.2 Beer
The manufacturing, transporting, and selling of 3.2 beer became
legal because of an amendment to the Volstead Act, passed by
Congress and signed by President Roosevelt. On April 7, 1933, real
beer returned to California cities and counties that didn’t have dry
ordinances. Trucks delivered load after load from breweries located
in San Francisco and Oakland to distributors in northern and central
California. Market Street in San Francisco was jammed with an
estimated 100,000 thirsty citizens,
while 75,000 had gathered at the
city’s three breweries. City
retailers had 8,000 barrels of beer
in stock to sell that evening.
California breweries were
operating 24 hours a day to keep
up with the demand for beer. It was
reported that there was less
drunkenness and fewer arrests
concerning alcohol usage now
Wright Act Repeal
that 3.2 beer and wine had replaced
The election of November 1932 was
hard bootleg liquor as the
a commanding victory over
consumer’s choice. There had
prohibition, with wet Democratic
been 20 percent less drunkenness
candidate Franklin Roosevelt being
in San Francisco, Fresno, and Los
triumphant and California voters
Distributing California Moonshine
Angeles.
San
Francisco
repealing the Wright Act. The state
Web Photo
speakeasies were suffering, while
voted 1,312,695 to 603,211 to repeal
it, which was Proposition 1 on the ballot. Proposition 2 was a state cafes, restaurants, and lunch rooms were flourishing with beer sales.
law to adopt state liquor control regulations, replacing the Wright Retailers were charging 10¢ to 20¢ for a glass of beer, with bottled
beer selling at two bottles for
Act, which passed by over
25¢, while Eastern brands were
700,000 votes. Statewide vote
costing two bottles for 35¢.
was
overwhelmingly
People were complaining about
Democratic
and
antithe high price of beer, saying
prohibition.
that 5¢ a glass seemed
reasonable. Bootleg hard liquor
With the Wright Act repealed,
prices increased dramatically,
California Governor Rolph
because the bootlegger was
pardoned 175 prisoners, who
losing money from the sale of
were being held in the state
legal beer and wine.
prisons
for
violating
prohibition. In January 1933,
U.S. Prohibition Bureau
the governor urged the
Director
Amos
W.W.
California legislature to quickly
Woodcock announced in April
ratify the 21st Amendment to the
1933 that prohibition agents had
U.S. Constitution, repealing
ceased raids on speakeasies,
prohibition, because it is of
concentrating their efforts
“paramount importance to the
instead on eliminating the
welfare of this state.” After the
Federal Prohibition Agents Armed with Shotguns in
source of bootleg liquor. Two
November 1932 election, the
California
Web Photo
powerful southern California
federal government announced
that California’s 140 bonded (taxed) wineries had stored over 13 businessmen were enraged by the crackdown, especially on rummillion gallons of new wine of several varieties. This was three running along the Santa Barbara coast. Their complaint caused two
times the amount of the previous year. Also, California wineries had especially zealous federal agents to be transferred elsewhere by
10 million gallons of wine from other years, bringing the approximate William C. Walker, federal prohibition administrator of the area.
total of 23.4 million gallons of wine available for purchase. Over
half the wine was available in northern California, while the remaining On April 28, 1933, Governor James Rolph signed into law the state’s
wine was kept at wineries found in central and southern California. beer regulatory law after being examined by former California
———————— 210 ————————
Supreme Court Justice Matt L. Sullivan to determine if it conflicted
with state and federal laws. The regulations were effective
immediately, allowing local governments to determine whether or
not to sell 3.2 percent beer and wine. The law also permitted licensing
of local businesses to sell 3.2 beer and wine. Scores of cities and
counties in the state adopted their own regulatory provisions to
comply with the new state regulations.
Summer- Autumn 2010
been popular and wanted to be retained.
In November 1933, California’s Alcohol Control Act received
approval by state voters as a California constitutional amendment,
allowing the sale of beer and wine in public dining rooms, termed
“on sale.” Beer, wine, and hard liquor could be purchased at licensed
stores to take home in packaged form, called “off sale.” The act
allowed private clubs and dining rooms to serve hard liquor with
meals, but they had to be consumed on the premises. Any sale of
alcohol was subject to state tax, collected by California’s Board of
Equalization.
Local Option Law
On May 1, 1933, California’s Fourth District Court struck down the
state’s local option law, which was the statute that allowed city and
county governments to determine
Governor
Rolph
was
if they wanted to be wet or dry. It
disappointed in the Alcohol
had been linked with the state’s
Control Act calling it too
Wright Act that state voters
stringent, because it was written
repealed six months earlier. With
too quickly. He wanted a more
the Wright Act gone and now the
liberalized law, especially one that
local option law being ruled
allowed the purchase and
invalid, there was a mass of
drinking of hard liquor in public
confusion in the state in regard to
dining rooms found at restaurants
prohibition. Federal prohibition
and hotels. He said if this was not
was still in effect, but it was now
done, speakeasies would once
only being enforced by a few
again flourish. A November 28,
federal agents. Since local law
1933 editorial in the Modesto
enforcement took oaths to uphold
News-Herald agreed completely
the U.S. Constitution, it was
with the governor, remarking, “Is
argued that local authorities were
Federal Prohibiton Agents with a Collection of Confiscated
this the kind of idiotic and asinine
automatically expected to enforce
California Liquor Stills
Web Photo
regulation to be one of the
prohibition, without any
hallmarks of repeal as were the
intervening state laws.
idiotic and asinine rules of prohibition itself?” On Decmber 20th, the
California Board of Equalization made a surprise announcement,
21st Amendment
On June 28, 1933, a special election concerning the 21st Amendment proclaiming that the state’s alcohol regulations had been amended
was held in the state, with the results being staunchly for its to allow the purchase and consuming of hard liquor in public dining
ratification. San Francisco County voted 16 to 1 in favor of the rooms. Cocktails now could be once again consumed with meals as
amendment, Los Angeles County 3 to 1, Sacramento County 9 to 1, they were in speakeasies. The great prohibition experiment had
Fresno and Merced counties 4 to 1, with Stanislaus and Madera ended in California, teaching lessons about the will of the American
counties being slightly for the amendment. These county elections society and the effectiveness of government when laws become
approved representatives to attend the “repeal convention” in unpopular.
Sacramento, July 25 to 29, to cast their vote for the ratification of
the 21st Amendment. California became the fourteenth state to ratify
the amendment. The last six states of the 36 needed, voted for the
21st Amendment on November 6, 1933, which repealed prohibition,
tanislaus istorical uarterly
the 18th Amendment. The federal Webb-Kenyon Act prevented the
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly is published four times a
transporting of liquor into states that were still dry.
year, featuring freshly researched articles on Stanislaus
S
State Alcohol Control
The California Board of Equalization was now the state regulatory
agency for alcoholic beverages. Beer and wine was not considered
a problem by most Californians. It was hard liquor that caused
debate. It was virtually unanimous that Californians didn’t want
the return of the old saloon days. During prohibition, saloons had
been replaced by speakeasies that had a more refined environment,
where women attended and various alcoholic beverages were served
with dinner. Most Californians now wanted beer and wine served at
eating establishments, while some wanted hard liquor and mixed
drinks with their meals. The “cocktail hour” at speakeasies had
H
Q
County history. Currently, there is no charge per subscription or individual issues, but readers must notify the editor
to be placed on the mailing list. Ideas for articles or historical information concerning topics of county history may
be sent to the editor. This is a non-profit educational publication. Stanislaus Historical Quarterly is edited, copyrighted, and published by Robert LeRoy Santos, Alley-Cass
Publications, 2240 Nordic Way, Turlock, CA, 95382. Tel:
209.634.8218. Email: blsantos@csustan.edu. Ellen Ruth Wine
Santos is assistant editor and proofreader.
ISSN1945-8126 ©
———————— 211 ————————
Part 3A - Temperance and Prohibition in Stanislaus County History
A Confusion of Wet and Dry Issues
Dry Ordinances and Federal Prohibition
Temperance Movement
T he temperance movement in Stanislaus County began in
earnest when the national secretary of the Women’s Christian
Temperance Union (WCTU), Francis Willard, came to
Modesto on April 14, 1883, speaking at the Methodist
Episcopal Church. She had been associated with WCTU since
1874, becoming widely known for her passionate devotion to
women’s rights, especially in regard to women’s education,
suffrage, and temperance. It was a convincing address,
because a Modesto chapter of WCTU was founded at the
engagement, with 16 women who were present becoming
charter members. Mrs. Garrison Turner was elected the
chapter’s first president. In 1884, a chapter of WCTU was
formed in Ceres, with another one being chartered in Oakdale
in 1887. A countywide chapter was founded on April 17, 1887,
with Fanny Wood being elected president.
In March 1908, Turlock held a special election to determine if
residents wanted to ban saloons. The anti-saloon vote failed,
but on May 24, 1910, another election was held, resulting in
Turlock banning the sale of all alcoholic beverages, by a
majority of 63 votes. When the 18 th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was ratified, the Turlock ordinance was amended
to reflect federal prohibition law.
In June 1911, California legislature passed the local option
law, which granted authority to local governments to decide
if they wanted their city or county to be wet or dry. Stanislaus
County’s Ministerial Union launched a campaign promoting
a dry county. California’s Anti-Saloon League Superintendent
Rev. Irving Bristol was in Modesto speaking about the antisaloon crusade before 300 attendees at Schafer’s Hall. He
declared, “Legislation cannot make one moral, but it will
remove temptation and indirectly that will make men moral.”
The local option law was a step in that direction, he stated,
but it was a compromise of sorts, because “it is impossible
to stop all evil. The people do rule.”
At the time, there were 120 towns in northern California with
ordinances that banned saloons. Rev. Bristol commented,
“The people are sick of the saloons that outrage public
decency, which has reached a point where it will stand no
more from the saloons, and that they will be wiped out.” He
advised the county to progress cautiously with its anti-saloon
crusade to produce an effective movement. The county’s
Ministerial Union elected an advisory committee to work in
tandem with the Anti-Saloon League. Its members were: Rev.
E.F. Brown, chairman, Modesto; Rev. C.S. Needham, Turlock;
Rev. H.E. Burbank, Oakdale; T.R. Beard, Modesto; and W.S.
Bone, Newman. The plan was for committee members to
circulate anti-saloon petitions and then present them to city
governments and the Stanislaus County Board of
Supervisors.
Dry Stanislaus
A special election in regard to saloons was scheduled for
May 14, 1912 in Stanislaus County. The ordinance under
consideration pertained only to county territory that was
outside incorporated cities. Residents of incorporated cities
were eligible to vote in the county election though, because
they were county citizens and taxpayers too. On May 13 th,
local newspapers featured a political advertisement urging
“Women to do their duty by placing your (X) opposite the
first square ‘Yes.’” It asked women to speak to neighbor
ladies, and to be sure every woman had a ride to the polls.
The advertisement declared, “Woman’s fair fame is on trial.
See that the record on Tuesday night redounds to her credit
and the county’s benefit.” It was the first time Stanislaus
County women had ever voted. The anti-saloon measure
passed by a vote of 5,310 to 2,106, with La Grange, Newman,
and Grayson being the only precincts voting against the
ordinance. Modesto’s vote count was 1,158 to 666 to close
saloons, while Turlock’s was 487 to 124. Therefore, 16 county
saloons were closed by May 31st. The Turlock Daily Journal
ran this commentary on May 15 th:
This being the first election held throughout the county
and state at which the women were on an equal footing
with the men. The most marked effect was the difference
in the aspect and surroundings of the polling places where
the women acted on the election boards. From smokefilled, boisterous loafing places for men, the polling places
were transformed into clean, orderly places with a general
air of neat sobriety. The women did nobly, and now that
they have had their first experience as electors, so in the
future, political leaders will give more attention to the
women than they did in this campaign.
Dry County Cities
Early in 1912, Modesto held a special election, having two
“anti-saloon” ordinances on the ballot. One ordinance
banned the public sale of alcohol in Modesto, while the other
required an annual “high license” fee of $1,000 for saloons.
The latter ordinance was a ploy by those who wanted saloons
to remain open in the city. If both ordinances won, the
ordinance with the greater number of “yes” votes would
triumph over the other. The election was held on July 11 th,
with the anti-saloon ordinance passing by 40 votes, 1,087 to
1,047, while the “High License Ordinance” failed, by a vote
of 895 to 1,146. (See the Autumn 2008 issue of SHQ for an
———————— 212 ————————
article on this election, entitled: “The Wets and the Drys:
Modesto’s Anti-Saloon Ordinance of 1912.”)
In June 1917, Oakdale held a special election concerning
saloons, with the city voting in favor of a dry ordinance,
closing its drinking establishments. The victory was by a
margin of just three votes, but it was said that many dry
ballots were voided because voters used a pencil instead of
a pen. The dry victors toured their cars around town in
celebration, being especially loud as they passed the saloons
on D Street.
In August, Modesto voted on a dry ordinance banning all
liquor licensing in the city, winning 1,156 to 944, with law
becoming effective on October 21 st . The election was heavily
contested, with women out in droves campaigning fervently,
with some 50 of them returning from vacation to vote.
Opponents placed a 16-column advertisement in the
newspaper, noting the financial benefits Modesto gained by
selling liquor. Modesto’s police commissioner was against
the dry ordinance, actively supporting a “no” vote, which
may have backfired. At this point, the nation was in a patriotic
fervor, because it was entering the European War against
Germany, which may have spurred the dry victory.
Ceres town lots had a dry clause in their deeds, placed there
by its founder, Daniel Whitmore. Selling or the transporting
of liquor on the properties was prohibited, and if it occurred,
the properties reverted back to the Whitmore family. The
clause read: “The said party of the second part, heirs, assigns
or lessee shall forever abstain, avoid and refrain from the
sale or traffic in any kind of distilled, intoxicating or ardent
spirits, spirituous or malt liquors, wine or cider, in or upon
said described premises or upon any street or highway
surrounding said premises.”
In 1918, Ceres City Council voted 4 to 0 to institute an
ordinance, the “little Volstead Act,” allowing city law
enforcement officials to prosecute federal prohibition
violators. The ordinance defined alcoholic beverages as
“spirituous, vinous or malt liquor and any other liquor or
mixture of liquor containing 1 percent by volume or more of
alcohol.” Newman became a dry town on July 1, 1919, when
its anti-alcohol ordinance went into effect.
Prohibition
On October 20, 1919, WCTU of California held a statewide
convention in Turlock, with the social session being staged
at the home of Mrs. A.H. Patterson on East Olive Street. The
confab was known as the “California Victory Convention,”
in celebration of the federal prohibition laws. Turlock’s
WCTU President Tillie Swenson led the planning for the
event.
Congress passed the National Prohibition Act, known as the
Volstead Act, over President Wilson’s veto in December 1919,
while the 18 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the
Summer- Autumn 2010
“Prohibition Amendment,” became effective on January 16,
1920. With the 18 th Amendment and the Volstead Act, federal
prohibition was law throughout the nation. On January 20 th,
Stanislaus County supervisors passed a new ordinance that
incorporated the clauses found in the Volstead Act, making
the county “as parch-bound as the Sahara Desert at the end
of a drought,” according to the newspaper. The new county
ordinance was effective on February 20, 1920, banning all
possible intoxicants, such as, “liquor, bitters, toilet waters,
and horse liniment,” just anything with more than .05 percent
alcohol in content. Druggists were limited to eight ounces of
“spirituous liquor” and 16 ounces of “malt liquors” per
prescription. The fine for violating the ordinance was $250
and/or 180 days in jail.
An editorial appeared on March 15, 1920 in the Turlock Daily
Journal that declared that prohibition would eliminate the
hobo, because without alcohol, the vagrant would now have
money to spend on worthwhile effects, such as clothing,
food, and shelter. He would also be sober enough to find
decent work and be a good employee. On March 27 th, Turlock
Daily Journal reported that old liquor signs were still up
and needed to be painted over or taken down, or face the
animosity of the State Law Enforcement League. The Turlock
WCTU held an institute on April 2 nd, at the First Baptist
Church, with Addie Estes of Stockton speaking about “Law
E n f o r c e m e n t , t h e Vo l s t e a d A c t , a n d I n d i v i d u a l
Responsibility.”
American cleverness in advertisement never ceases to amaze,
regardless of its tack and style. On April 23, 1920, an
advertisement for a musical road show at the Turlock Theater
appeared in the Turlock Daily Journal with phrases such
as, “Bootleggers Operating Here,” “Intoxicating Girls,” and
“Barrels of Fun.” Apparently the show specialized in girls
dancing in boots. The next evening the same troop appeared
at the Modesto Theatre, advertised as “Jim Post and Tom
Kelly in Their Greatest Hit ‘The Bootleggers,’ a Musical
Cocktail in Two Rounds.”
Dry Organizations
On May 6 and 7, 1920, WCTU of Stanislaus County held
their 33 rd annual convention at Wood Colony Hall, north of
Modesto, under the direction of Almyrta Lollich. The
organization had 700 members, with only delegates attending
the convention. The main discussion centered on “scientific
temperance instruction,” resulting in the approval of a
resolution sent to Stanislaus County Schools Superintendent
A.G. Elmore and to the Stanislaus County Board of Education.
The resolution asked that curriculum be developed to teach
alcoholic and narcotic abuse and have English language
classes require students to write about those themes. A letter
of support from the convention was sent to Stanislaus
County’s Congressman H.C. Barbour thanking him “for the
stand you have taken on the Volstead Act. Continue firm. We
are with you.” Another resolution was passed that warned
“victories now achieved by temperance work, will be in vain
———————— 213 ————————
Summer- Autumn 2010
similar to the Harris Referendum that had failed the year
before. California voters approved the Wright Act as a
referendum in 1922, with it becoming effective in 1923. An
editorial in the Turlock Daily Journal claimed that the state
didn’t need its own Volstead Act, because every state and
In July 1920, a speaker representing the Anti-Saloon League m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l t o o k t h e o a t h t o u p h o l d t h e U . S .
addressed an assembly at the Methodist Church in Turlock, Constitution.
concerning the election of politicians who supported
Different Views
prohibition. The league as usual would not endorse any
The
division
found
in
the local area over prohibition is seen
individual candidate, but urged voters to cast their votes for
by
these
two
events,
which
occurred just a few miles from
pro-prohibition candidates. Turlock’s WCTU was busy in
each
other
on
the
same
day,
November 5, 1924. A regular
September 1920, meeting at Mrs. J.E. Weaver’s home, 737
meeting
of
Wood
Colony’s
WCTU
was held in the afternoon
West Main Street, and two weeks later at the home of Mrs.
at
the
home
of
Mrs.
N.C.
Lollich,
where
a report was heard by
Ed Gilliland. Mrs. Tillie Peterson was elected president and
members
concerning
the
WCTU’s
statewide
convention that
delegates were chosen to be sent to the state convention to
met
in
Sacramento.
The
scene
is
a
group
of
proper ladies,
be held in Richmond in October. Lieutenant Governor O.C.
sipping
tea
or
coffee,
socializing,
and
discussing
education
Young spoke at the Richmond convention saying that if the
and
enforcement
of
prohibition.
In
the
evening
of the
Harris Referendum on the November ballot is passed, the
previous
day
and
the
early
morning
of
the
November
5 th, a
state would have 20,000 local law enforcement officers to
arrest offenders of prohibition. He noted that local jails would lynching crowd in Escalon captured two federal prohibition
hold the violators, and local courts would prosecute the agents, who were returning from raiding a ranch for
prohibition violations. The more vocal and anti-prohibition
cases.
members of the area decided to vent their frustrations
concerning prohibition on two federal agents. Fortunately,
Harris Referendum
rd
On November 3 , Stanislaus County voters passed the Harris one escaped and called in law enforcement, while the other
Referendum, 6,733 to 3,579, but it failed statewide, thereby stood naked with a noose around his neck, awaiting his fate.
leaving California without a “little Volstead Act.” This Sheriff deputies arrived quickly, averting a near fatal mistake
setback prompted wet proponents to hedge more on federal by the unruly mob.
prohibition. This brashness is shown in the advertisement
that appeared two days later in the Modesto Morning News, In 1924, there were 4,543 acres of wine grapes in the county,
suggesting the use of fruit juices and malt for home down from nearly 7,000 acres a few years earlier. The county’s
concocted wine and beer. It read: “To the Public: You will wine grape harvest totaled 36,360 tons, worth $2.5 million.
find a new store to supply you with all fruit and berry juices, On November 17, 1924, an editorial appeared in the Modesto
for you clubs and parties. Also all kinds of malt syrups for News-Herald that centered on the popularity of prohibition.
your home beverages. Port-O Fruit Juice and Syrup Company, The writer wrote that never before have any laws been
violated as much as prohibition. There have been laws
1109 J St., next to Community Market, Modesto.”
against stock market schemes and crooked brokerages, with
Modesto City Council, being dominated by pro-prohibition people violating them, but those laws are still popular and
members, drafted an ordinance that would do much the same citizens want them enforced. Not so with prohibition, where
thing for Modesto as the Harris Referendum would have done people violate it, because they don’t respect it. He suggested
for the state. It wanted city police and courts to enforce that a poll be taken to learn what the American public wanted
federal prohibition to control the alcoholic problem and to do about prohibition.
provide additional revenue to the city. It was similar to
ordinances adopted in Bakersfield and Fresno. The Modesto Hughson’s WCTU met in December 1924 and listened to
City Council passed the ordinance on December 17 th, with it reports on narcotics, Americanization, and child welfare.
going into effect ten days later. The ordinance made it Turlock’s WCTU had 150 members in 1926, strongly
unlawful for anyone to possess, sell, or transport intoxicating supporting prohibition. On January 18, 1926, Rev. G.W.
liquor, which was any alcoholic beverage with more than .05 G r a n n i s s p o k e a t t h e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h i n T u r l o c k ,
percent alcohol. There were provisions that excluded commenting on prohibition’s successes, especially the
sacramental or medicinal use of liquor. The fines ranged from reduction of crime. In five years, he said, arrests for crime
dropped by a half million. With the absence of saloons, liquor
$250 to $500 and/or 180 days in jail.
traffic had plummeted. The Wood Colony WCTU met at the
home of Mrs. Henry Ford in June 1926, discussing the training
Wright Act
The California legislature passed the Wright Prohibition of mothers to teach their children about sobriety.
Enforcement Law in 1921, known as the “Wright Act” or the
Law Enforcement
state’s “little Volstead Act.” It provided authority to state
Turlock
formed
a
chapter
of the Stanislaus County Law
agencies and courts to enforce federal prohibition. It was
without law enforcement.” This was in reference to the Harris
Bill that was up for approval in the state legislature. If passed
it would be California’s “little Volstead Act,” a law needed to
enforce federal prohibition by state and local law officials.
———————— 214 ————————
Enforcement League in June 1926, having 22 charter
members. J.E. Elsen was elected chairman, and Mrs. Burnett
spoke about law enforcement, specifically applied to
prohibition. A youth conference was sponsored by the
league, with the desire to charter a youth organization that
would support local law enforcement. The conference was
held at Modesto’s Methodist Episcopal Church, with a youth
group being founded. The new organization planned to
register voters, while promoting dry candidates and dry
ballot measures.
In August 1926, Stanislaus County Law Enforcement League
President A.T. Corson resigned, because of gossip about his
earlier battle with alcohol that was affecting the organization
and ruining his leadership. He had personally defeated
alcoholism and was with his family again. He commented, “I
have nothing to conceal and regret that my past has been
dragged into the detriment of the organization. I have been
trying to live in the community the right way and have thrown
the weight of my opinion on the side of right in all ways.”
Turlock’s WCTU met in September 19th, with the repeal of the
Wright Act being the major topic of discussion. The Turlock
chapter of the Anti-Saloon League held a meeting in
September to plan its strategy to defeat the Wright repeal
effort. A committee was selected to launch a local campaign.
The Wright Act was again at the top of the agenda for
discussion by Turlock’s WCTU at its October meeting, held
at Mrs. Haines residence. A press statement from the meeting
stated: “Repeal would make California a bootleggers’
paradise. The Wright Act puts an effective barrier between
the youth of the state and the poisonous drugs of the
bootleggers.” A political advertisement appeared on October
30, 1926 in the Turlock Daily Journal urging a “yes” vote on
Proposition 9 to repeal the Wright Act. The repeal failed at
the November 3 rd election, losing by a state vote of 502,258
to 565,875. Stanislaus County vote was very close, with 3,942
voting “yes” to repeal and 3,983 “no.”
The WCTU sponsored a youth chapter for Merced and
Stanislaus counties, with 80 members, headed by Emma
Mower. The youngsters ranged from 6 to 14 years of age.
They signed a temperance pledge and held rallies, singing
verses such as: “America. America, Free! Free! Free! Dear
old Glory is the flag for me! America, America, Dry! Dry! Dry!
We can help keep it so if we try!”
Educating youth about alcohol abstinence was WCTU’s
highest priority. WCTU chapters in the county had education
departments that worked with school superintendents, such
as Superintendent Mrs. L.J. Ericson, who was a strong
prohibitionist. She allowed her classroom teachers, K-12, to
voluntarily develop curriculum on prohibition and alcohol
abuse. Classroom activities included making temperance and
anti-tobacco posters, and writing temperance essays. There
were twelve monetary prizes awarded for the best posters
and essays. Two essays that garnered prizes were “How
Summer- Autumn 2010
abstinence from alcoholic liquors by the individual benefits
the community” and “Why the U.S. prohibits the sale of beer
and wine.” Local student, Freedoff Hamlow, compiled a
booklet entitled “My Total Abstinence Book,” which was
entered into a statewide WCTU competition, winning $5 in
prize money and much praise. The county WCTU chapter
delivered 1,000 flyers prior to a recent election, urging citizens
to vote for dry candidates and dry issues. The 1927 slogan
for the WCTU was “Hold Fast and Go Forward.” In February
1927, the Turlock WCTU met at the Turlock Methodist
Episcopal Church, with Reverend Jessie Heath, a Salida
minister, heading the institute, which included such topics
as “Has liquor any rights in America?”; “Liquor a national
and state problem”; “Substitutes for prohibition”; “Who is
the contemptible bootlegger?”; and “Hold fast to
prohibition.”
Grapes
The shipment of grapes from county vineyards continued at
its usual rate in 1927. Turlock’s Southern Pacific freight agent,
L.B. Hickey, reported that 1,616 railroad carloads of grapes
had been shipped from Turlock and Keyes, an increase from
1,318 the previous year. An advertisement was printed in the
Turlock Daily Journal on September 22, 1928 concerning
grape juice. It read: “Pure Grape Juice for Sale - Grapes
Crushed and Pressed To Order - We will crush and press
your own grapes - Containers furnished or bring your own Modesto Grape Products Co. - Antonio Fodera, Manager - 9 th
and B Sts – Modesto - Phone 444.” Pressed grapes could be
easily turned into wine when water was added and the mixture
fermented. This was becoming a very popular practice, and
since increasing doubts were surfacing concerning
prohibition, more people were returning to pre-prohibition
days by manufacturing home wine.
Prohibition Problems
With the November 1928 election approaching, prohibition
was once again a major topic. Proponent of prohibition, H.
Newberry of Hughson, wrote a letter to the editor of the
Modesto Morning Herald, which was printed on October 5,
1928. In it he stated that “prohibition became a necessity for
civic protection and public safety. It was not intended to
curtail real liberty or to take the place of religious endeavor
or even moral reform. Though not as well enforced as we
would like or hope it to be, beneficial results have already
accrued. Crime and poverty have decreased and education
and morality increased. Surely a not true patriot or anyone
desiring the welfare of society could wish this beneficent
law repealed. The safety and well-being of society are of
vastly more value than the ‘almighty dollar.’” He supported
Republican Herbert Hoover for president. Hoover won the
November election against Al Smith, with Stanislaus County
voting 10,557 for Hoover and 5,041 for Smith.
Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League of Northern
California Rev. C.W. Gawthrop spoke at Turlock’s Christian
Church on Crane Avenue and Church Street in September
———————— 215 ————————
1929. He noted that the dry forces had won a tremendous
victory when Hoover was elected president, but the problem
is still the enforcement of prohibition, which he discussed at
length. In the same month, federal prosecuting attorney in
San Francisco, Ben F. Geis, addressed an assembly at
Turlock’s Presbyterian Church at Crane and Elm streets. His
topic was “Can the Eighteenth Amendment Be Enforce?”
In 1930, the state’s primary election saw wets and drys battling
each other over prohibition, with the wets wanting alcohol
control returned to the states, while the drys wanted federal
prohibition strictly enforced. An editorial in the Turlock Daily
Journal of October 1, 1930 declared that it would take “an
army of enforcement officers” to control state prohibition,
but “it would not remedy the evils of the business.”
Republicans held strong in the 1930 election, with Republican
James Rolph being elected governor over Democratic
candidate Young, by a vote of 422,862 to 121,882, with
Stanislaus County voting 7,827 for Rolph and 5,856 for Young.
On October 21, 1931, the WCTU of Northern California held
their annual convention in Modesto at the Presbyterian
Church. The keynote speaker was novelist Kathleen Norris,
who told the attendees that great social advances did not
come without opposition, such as Washington against the
Tories and Lincoln against secessionists. She called the
opponents of prohibition “a slippery and dangerous group
who do not believe in their own arguments.” In the
generations before, she remarked, people were poor and
suffered in life, becoming dependent on alcohol to bear their
problems. She said that this was not true currently, because
of the advances in technology. America’s youth have “cars,
athletics, scout movements, and radios” to channel their
energies, so “Why do they need cocktails?” She told the
convention that prosperity would not be revived by repealing
prohibition.
1932
The state election of November 1932 focused on the repeal
of the Wright Act and state liquor regulations. In September,
the Turlock Wright Act Federation listened to local attorney
William N. Graybiel speak on the retention of the Wright Act.
This launched the federation’s campaign to persuade county
residents to vote for the act’s retention. Stanislaus County
voted 10,754 to 9,178 against repeal, but statewide voters
rejected the Wright Act, repealing it, leaving the state without
local prohibition enforcement authority. On the ballot was
another state measure concerning alcoholic beverages. This
one was to develop state liquor regulations, which won in
the county by a vote of 10,594 to 8,966. The national election
was an overwhelming victory for anti-prohibitionists and
Democrats, with wet presidential candidate Franklin
Roosevelt beating dry candidate, incumbent Herbert Hoover.
Stanislaus County voted 12,188 for Roosevelt and 7,505 for
Hoover.
With the 1932 election results being convincingly anti-
Summer- Autumn 2010
prohibition, the question was what would replace it? On
November 18, 1932 the editor of the Turlock Daily Journal
asked for commonsense, “No one who lived through the old,
pre-prohibition days needs to be told that the shameless
greed of the liquor interests in those days was a force that
worked directly against the public interest. Nor does anyone
who can remember what has happened since 1920 need to be
told that the bootlegging industry created an utterly
intolerable situation. Any change that fails to take both of
these factors into full consideration will not last. The job of
revision demands the utmost in the way of intelligence and
fair-minded concern for the welfare of the nation.”
Repealing Dry Ordinances
On January 13, 1933, Modesto City Council voted 3 to 2 to
amend Modesto’s “little Wright Act,” with pro-prohibitionist
Mayor L.L. Dennett and councilmen William Falger and E. J.
Boundey voting for it, while anti-prohibition councilmen A.N.
Brown and Harold Rogers voting against it. The approved
amendment was merely to reduce penalties for violation of
the city’s dry law. Since city residents had voted in favor of
repealing the state’s Wright Act, Brown and Rogers wanted
the city’s “little Wright Act” not to be amended but be
repealed as well. Turlock City Attorney W. Coburn introduced
an ordinance to the city council that would allow city judges
to fine and sentence at their own discretion violators of the
city’s dry Ordinance No. 195. Coburn’s ordinance was needed,
because the state’s Wright Act had been repealed. On January
18 th, Turlock City Council approved the new Ordinance No.
299.
Dr. Alonzo Baker, editor of Mountain View Magazine, spoke
on January 18 th to the members of Stanislaus County Allied
Temperance at the First Presbyterian Church in Modesto,
declaring that the standard of living would be lowered if
federal prohibition was repealed. He alleged that it would
restore the influence of brewers and distillers in politics,
causing increased auto accidents and insurance rates, slow
down industry, and in general lower the standard of living.
The Turlock chapter of WCTU held its annual institute on
February 9 th, at the Methodist Church on South Broadway
Avenue, with President Matilda Jessup presiding. Lecture
and discussion topics were “Child Welfare,” “Prohibition
Cooperation by Churches,” and “Combating Beer
Propaganda with Facts.”
3.2 Beer
The city council squabble continued in Modesto in March
1933, with Councilman Rogers telling the press that he would
be introducing a resolution to the city council on March 29 th
to repeal the city’s “little Wright Act.” Also, at the April 11 th
meeting, he would submit another resolution to repeal the
city’s 1917 ordinance that prohibited liquor traffic within city
limits. Modesto’s “little Wright Act” allowed .05 beer, but
Congress was on the verge of passing a 3.2 beer law. Rogers
felt the “little Wright Act” needed repeal to have the city
come into compliance with the upcoming federal beer law.
———————— 216 ————————
Rogers further commented that if Modesto doesn’t sell 3.2
beer then its consumers would go elsewhere, depriving the
city of business revenue and licensing fees. Rogers declared
the people of Modesto want 3.2 beer.
Councilman A.N. Brown, who also was the city’s police
commissioner, told the press, “I’m solidly behind Councilman
Rogers. The time has come for action. We can’t be held back
any longer by a few who want to deprive the majority of what
it is entitled to have.” Anti-prohibitionist Mayor Dennett
still wasn’t ready to act, as weren’t his other dry city council
colleagues, Faiger and Boundey. They wanted to wait until
the federal government’s beer law was enacted.
Stanislaus County was a dry county, having its own “little
Wright Act” that allowed only .05 percent alcoholic
beverages. Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors’ Chairman
W.H. Brink told the press that the board would act on the 3.2
beer issue when it was the proper time, and it would vote
according to the desire of the people. Federal legislation
legalizing 3.2 beer was approved and signed by Roosevelt,
with 12:01 a.m. on April 7 th being set as the moment when
beer taps opened across the nation for the first time in 13
years. Also legalized was 3.2 wine, but wineries were
disinterested in making wines with that low of alcoholic
content, because they would be severely inferior in quality.
Good traditional wine required 10 to 20 percent alcohol. Word
came from the U.S. District Attorney office that those who
were home-brewing beer, must keep it within the 3.2 alcohol
content and pay a $5 a barrel tax. If they sell their product,
then they must pay a yearly tax of $1,000.
The 3.2 beer disagreement continued in Modesto. Modesto
Mayor Dennett had another thought on Modesto’s “little
Wright Act.” He told the press that since there will be a federal
law allowing 3.2 percent beer and wine, then the city doesn’t
need an ordinance, with federal law superseding local laws.
City Attorney Nathan B. McVay disagreed saying that
Modesto needs to repeal its dry laws and place on the city
ballot a 3.2 beer and wine referendum, because the city needs
a regulatory measure to control alcohol sales. Modesto Bee
editor wasn’t worried about either beer and wine, his concern
was hard liquor, urging its strict regulation.
At the Modesto City Council meeting of March 22 nd, wet
councilmen Rogers and Brown introduced a resolution to
repeal the city’s “little Wright Act,” which was defeated by
dry councilmen Dennett, Falger, and Boundey. Then the dry
members introduced two resolutions for city residents to vote
upon at a special election on April 11 th: (1) to repeal the city’s
“little Wright Act” and (2) to repeal the city’s 1917 dry
ordinance that allowed just 1 percent beer. The city council
passed the two resolutions, 3 to 2. The position of the dry
Modesto councilmen was that the city’s “little Wright Act”
had been approved by city voters; therefore, to repeal it, it
must go back to city voters, because the city council had no
authority to repeal it. A Modesto Bee editorial urged a vote
Summer- Autumn 2010
to repeal the “little Wright Act” and for the city council to
approve a resolution for 3.2 beer. It stated, “It should be
done most of all because it would be a definite step away
from that fanaticism now happily rejected by our nation that
for fourteen years have stood in the way of true temperance.”
By any account, Modestans wanted 3.2 beer, but were
perplexed because 3.2 beer would be legal nationally on April
7 th , while the Modesto election to repeal prohibition
ordinances wouldn’t be until April 11 th. Modestans wanted
the city council to pass a 3.2 beer ordinance immediately, so
they could drink beer on April 7 th with the rest of the nation.
Rogers lamented bitterly saying that cities in neighboring
counties had already approved 3.2 beer and would see
Modesto customers in their stores on April 7th. He declared,
“We might as well declare a holiday – things will be so dead
here when beer is sold.”
The Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors had a similar
problem in that the 1911 county dry law was a referendum
approved by county voters; therefore, the board could not
override the ordinance. A repeal referendum was placed on
the ballot for the next general election, allowing county voters
to decide. The supervisors passed an ordinance on March
28, 1933 to allow the transportation of 3.2 beer through
county territory to the wet cities.
Ceres was still undergoing discussion on 3.2 beer, because
of the Whitmore deeds. The district attorney said 3.2 beer
couldn’t be sold in the incorporated city, while Ceres Judge
Myron Moyle thought it needed study. Ceres Mayor J.W.
Beveridge felt that 3.2 beer could be sold, because the
definition of “intoxicating” is not in the Whitmore clause. It
could be .05 percent or 3.2 percent. On April 1 st , it was
disclosed that after searching the Ceres city archives, a dry
ordinance, “little Volstead Act,” was found, allowing 1 percent
alcoholic beverages. It was passed by the city council, 4 to
0, with V.D. Whitmore serving as mayor at the time. The city
council could easily repeal the 1918 ordinance. In May 1933,
Ceres residents were polled, finding that they wanted 3.2
beer. The city council consequently passed an ordinance
allowing 3.2 beer to be sold in town by city licensed
businesses. Whitmore heirs proclaimed that there would be
no attempt by them to enforce the Whitmore deeds.
On April 3 rd , Modesto Mayor Dennett and Councilman
Boundey had changed their minds, stating that the national
3.2 beer law would supersede the city’s “little Wright Act.”
City Attorney A.J. Carlson disagreed, commenting that the
local dry law overrode the national beer law. Nevertheless,
thirsty Modestans were incensed concerning the Modesto
City Council’s refusal to pass an ordinance allowing 3.2 beer.
Other county incorporated cities were at work repealing old
dry ordinances and approving new wet ones. The cities that
now had ordinances to sell 3.2 beer on April 7 th were Ceres,
Newman, Oakdale, Patterson, and Riverbank, with Oakdale
and Patterson planning public celebrations
———————— 217 ————————
Summer- Autumn 2010
Merced and San Joaquin counties were preparing for a deluge Turlock City Council set May 9 th for vote on 3.2 beer and
of customers from Stanislaus County. Escalon had five
wine. If passed, licenses would be granted to businesses
businesses selling 3.2 beer, which were: Westberg’s First and for a yearly fee of $12 to $16, depending if they were “off
Last Garage, Texas Service Station, and Denis Station; two sale” or “on sale” establishments. Licenses before the city
soft drink parlors: Boldts’ and C.
council for approval had to be
Cadlolo’s; and Lucky McFall’s
recommended by the police chief.
Riverside Club that featured a
Any violation of the liquor
beer garden and dance hall.
ordinance would immediately
Droves of Modestans organized
close the business.
a “ We Wa n t B e e r ” p a r a d e ,
driving to Stockton on the
A Modesto Bee article reported
evening of April 6 th. Some say
that Modesto druggists had been
there was up to 1,000 traveling
selling port and sherry wine for
on the road to buy the “New
medicinal purposes, with no
Deal Beer,” named for Roosevelt.
physician’s prescription. The
The lines were enormous at the This Is a Liquor Still Operation Raided in November 1933 w i n e h a d b e e n t e s t e d b y t h e
Stockton stores at midnight on at the Cowell Cement Co. Ranch, Near Hopetown, Merced federal government to assure that
April 7 th . Meanwhile, at the County. Confiscated Were 84,000 Gallons of Mash and it contained the needed vitamins
north entrance to Modesto, a 2,525 Gallons of Alcohol. These Are Two Vats That Have and minerals. The label on the
black wreath with black crepe Molasses That Is Still Cooking.
bottles read: “Formula –
Walker Photo
bunting was hung, while an
Elementary minerals needed for
empty beer bottle dangled from it. An improvised choir the upbuilding of the system – Contains Vitamins A, B, C,
gathered by the wreath chanting funeral dirges. In Hughson, and D.” It sold for $1 a pint or $1.50 a quart and consisted of
WCTU members boycotted any business that sold or gave 22 percent alcohol. It was unadvertised, because druggists
away 3.2 beer.
felt if it were, they would be inundated.
In the evening of April 6 th, Turlockers headed for Livingston, Beer election ballots were sent out to Turlockers on April
Hilmar, and Irwin to buy 3.2
24 th for the May 9 th vote.
beer. An airplane from
The Turlock Ministerial
Merced County dropped
Union held a mass meeting
leaflets on Turlock and
in Central Park on May 8 th
Madera, advertising the
at 8 p.m, with the Turlock
availability of legal beer.
High
School
Band
After drinking the 3.2 beer,
providing
musical
some consumers felt they
entertainment. Five-minute
had been deceived,
addresses were given by
because the 3.2 beer
local ministers on such
tasted like .05 beer. It was
topics as beer and church,
thought that some retailers
beer and the home, beer
This Is the Building That Housed the Liquor Still and Vats Shown
had added extra alcohol to
and youth, beer and the
Above. The Still Had a Daily Capacity of Manufacturing 1,500 Galstrengthen their .05 beer.
schools, beer and safety,
lons of Liquor of 190 Proof or 95 percent Alcohol. Walker Photo
One beer wholesaler, with
beer and business. H.H.
outlets in Oakdale and Ripon, ran out of beer stock, began Wilson, Chairman of the Turlock Branch of the Allied
madly telephoning breweries to purchase more.
Temperance Forces, claimed that if 3.2 percent alcohol is nonintoxicating, then liquor at 3.2 percent and below could be
On April 12 th, Modestans voted to repeal the city’s two dry purchased by any minor.
ordinances, by votes of 3,919 to 1,076 and 3,915 to 1,043.
Only 67 percent of the registered voters cast ballots. Wet On May 9 th, Turlock voters approved 3.2 beer and wine by 65
city council members, A.N. Brown and Harold Rogers, were percent of the vote. Just 56 percent of the registered voters
elated by the vote, declaring, “People here have been denied cast ballots at the poll, located in the Justice Court office on
it long enough.” Even though the city council hadn’t drafted S o u t h F r o n t St r e e t . A Tu r l o c k M i n i s t e r i a l U n i o n
an ordinance regulating alcohol, beer sales were brisk in the representative was disappointed, believing the vote would
city, and lines were long. One distributor ran out of stock have been much closer. Applications were already submitted
quickly, complaining he wouldn’t receive any more beer for for beer and wine licenses, with the city council approving
three days. At its next meeting, the city council passed liquor 21 on May 17 th . Fifteen licenses were for restaurants, five for
licensing and enforcement regulations.
wholesale distributors, and one grocery store. Turlock
Ministerial Union urged the patronizing of businesses that
———————— 218 ————————
didn’t sell alcoholic beverages. On June 27 th , Stanislaus
County residents voted 6,869 to 4,603 in favor of the 21 st
Amendment, which would repeal the 18 th Amendment. This
vote count was reported to the state legislature for its
decision to support or repeal the amendment.
Summer- Autumn 2010
the State Board of Equalization, who had an office in the
county courthouse. State license fees were $50 annually,
while off-sale license for hard liquor was $100. Sale of alcohol
to minors and other liquor law violations, such as selling
hard liquor in a business that was licensed only for on-sale
beer and wine, would immediately revoke the license. The
applicant for a liquor license needed to have testimonies from
five county property owners as to his moral character. The
business facility had these restrictions: could not be located
near schools, churches, prisons, and construction camps,
and it could not have interior nooks and crannies in the
public area.
Red Mountain
It was announced in November 1933 that the Red Mountain
Winery of Knights Ferry was to open again with new owners:
Joe Steenstrup of Stockton and Oakdale businessmen
Emanuel Galas, Gus Galas, and Frank Ghilarducci. The winery
was located 12 miles east of Oakdale
on the former Spanish land grant,
In 1933, the county had 12,600
Rancheria Del Rio Estanislao. The
acres of wine grapes that brought
original winery was owned by H.
$600,000 at harvest time. On
Kruse, a native of Germany, and
November 17 th, a truck filled with
Abraham Schell from New York. Its
grapes flipped on its side in Turlock
new name was Oakdale Winery. It
at the intersection of Main and
had 12 redwood fermenting tanks,
Front streets. Lugboxes filled with
with a capacity of eight tons each.
grapes were flung onto the
There were ten storage tanks,
r o a d w a y. O n c e t h e t r u c k w a s
capable of holding 1,800 gallons of
upright, the driver restacked the
wine each. The wine storage vault
lugboxes on the truck bed and then
was a historic one, consisting of a
swept up the mashed grapes from
tunnel, modeled after European wine
the street to be used for wine. An
cellars. The tunnel had been crafted
agent from the State Board of
from a solid rock hillside, 80 feet long
Equalization visited Turlock to
and then a left angle of another 80 This Liquor Still Operation Was on the F. Ranch,
assist in the collection of state
feet that ended underneath the Five Miles NE of Newman, Discovered in a Raid by
liquor license applications. Turlock
winery. The tunnel was 15 feet wide Federal Prohibition Agents. It Could Manufacture
Police Chief E.W. Geddy and the
and seven feet tall, having heavy 2,000 Gallons Daily. Confiscated were 96,000 Galboard’s agent visited the various
i r o n e n t r a n c e d o o r s . T h e lons of Mash, 875 Gallons of Alcohol, Two 40 HP
businesses, alerting them to the
temperature inside was a constant Engines, and an Automobile.
Walker Photo
liquor licensing regulations. The
70 degrees.
board received all of the revenue from state liquor licenses,
state sales tax, and state liquor tax.
Prohibition Transitions
An editorial appearing in the Turlock Daily Journal on
November 2 nd warned once more that “Repeal of the Fourteen years of federal prohibition ended on December 5,
Eighteenth Amendment, arriving with a speed few people in 1933 when the last required state ratified the 21 st Amendment.
America thought possible, does not simply mark the end of a With New Year’s Eve celebrations coming, an advertisement
great experiment. It also marks the beginning of a new one, appeared in the Turlock Daily Journal on December 29 th,
and it is going to be very easy for us to make just as many which read: Get Your Holiday Liquors From Our Complete
mistakes with the new as we did with the old.” He asked that Stock of Whiskey, Gin, Rum, Brandy, Champagne, Wine,
beer and wine regulation be liberal, while the control of hard Cordials, and 6 Percent Beer – Open Evenings and Sunday liquor be stringent. He stated, “Education is probably the Wine – Cordials - Free Delivery - Phone 1279 - RIPS Liquor
surest way to pave the way for decency and self-control in Store (Home Owned) - 224 E. Main St.
the liquor problem.”
Another advertisement appeared on December 30 th which
th
The Modesto Bee announced on November 9 the opening read: A Happy New Year Is Certain to Be Yours If Your Holiday
of a new brewery located at 10 th and G streets in Modesto. It Liquors Are Obtained From Our High-Grade Stock - Whiskey,
was owned by William Henning of Alameda and J.H. Anderton pint, 93¢ - Gin, ½ pint, 35¢ - White Rock, pint, 24¢ - Sweet
of San Francisco. New equipment costing $70,000 was Wine, quart, 98¢ - Tipo Wine, quart, 98¢ - We Deliver Free installed, with the brewery having the largest beer storage in Turlock Liquor Store - E. Main and Front St. - Andy Mann,
the state. It had the capacity to produce 50 barrels a day. The Mgr. - Phone 196.
employees came from the Modesto area, except for the brew
master. Modesto liquor license requests were funneled Alcohol was back in legal business in Stanislaus County.
through Louis F. Cooke, state sales tax auditor, representing
———————— 219 ————————
Part 3B - Temperance and Prohibition in Stanislaus County History
Stanislaus County Prohibition Crime, Arrest, and Confiscations
Found in Stanislaus County Newspapers
This article was written from Stanislaus County newspapers, mostly
the Modesto Bee, Modesto Morning Herald, Modesto NewsHerald, and Turlock Daily Journal. It is intended to provide a
sense of the extent of federal prohibition activity in Stanislaus
County, 1920-1933. These newspapers were read daily by Stanislaus
County residents, providing them with information concerning the
issues of the day, in which prohibition was a major topic. The article
contains a sampling of the numerous newspaper articles, mostly
short, concerning the local enforcement of federal prohibition, the
violations, arrests, fines, jail sentences, and the personalities on
both sides of the law. The names of the prohibition violators are
confined to initials, so as not to offend family members and maybe
to provide some sport, if the reader is interested in guessing the
real names. To help, the ethnicities for wine are Assyrian, Armenian,
Greek, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, Portuguese, and Swiss, while for
beer it’s English, German, and Irish. The Scandinavians liked a
something in their coffee. For moonshine whiskey or jackass brandy,
it was everyone. Women were nearly always exempt, and of course,
well-churched Protestants were avid prohibitionists. That should
be the county neighborhood, all Americans, of varying views
concerning alcohol and prohibition, rightly or wrongly.
Blind Pig
Before federal prohibition was effective, Stanislaus County and a
number of its incorporated towns were dry (non-alcoholic), either
through ordinances at the city level or measures approved by the
county’s voting public. On May 24, 1919, operators of a “blind pig”
were arrested near Turlock by the county sheriff and local police.
They appeared before Judge W.H. Rice, whose court was busy
throughout the prohibition era. Arrested were B.M. and P.P., who
were fined $500 each, instead of $1,000, because they pleaded guilty.
Others arrested with them were acquitted, while the confiscated
bootleg liquor was destroyed. (The term “blind pig,” or in the Eastern
U.S, “blind tiger,” stood for a bootlegger’s operation. “Blind”
referred to it being “hidden,” while “pig” was for wallowing in muck
and “tiger” for powerful moonshine.)
Prohibition Begins
Federal prohibition was effective on January 16, 1920. Along with
prohibition, there were county and city dry laws, which employed
federal agents, state agents, and local police and sheriffs in an
effort to enforce them. On January 25th, Modesto Police Chief L.E.
Smith found two men who were inebriated in a Ford touring car in
an alleyway. They had a ten-gallon barrel of wine. The suspects
were turned over to federal prohibition agents for prosecution.
On February 6th, County Deputy Sheriff Emmett Elmore had the job
of pouring into the jail’s sewer 450 bottles of confiscated beer. It
had been ordered by the U.S. Bureau of Internal Revenue Deputy
Thomas Casey, fearing that the bottles might find their way into the
bootleg market. The beer, however, clogged up the jail’s sewer,
requiring a plumber to fix the problem. The beer was seized from a
blind pig establishment, operated by G.R.G. in south Modesto, who
was serving a 250-day jail sentence for his bootleg operation.
In Modesto, two local men, W.C.C. and W.E.W., were arrested for
alcohol possession and sent to Stockton for a federal court hearing.
Their cars were confiscated but returned. On April 14, 1920, three
men in a Chalmers touring car passed Deputy Sheriff Hill near Ceres,
traveling 45 mph. Because their vehicle nearly struck oncoming
cars, Hill stopped them, finding a quantity of liquor in the car. They
were arrested for alcohol possession, and the driver charged for
drunken driving. While motoring on McHenry Avenue in Modesto,
teenager W.B. collided with another car. Modesto Police Officer
Saxby arrested him for drunken driving and transporting alcohol.
W.B. had two friends in the car, C.S. and G.H., who were arrested as
well for their part in the prohibition offense.
On August 9, 1920, notorious blind pigger, G.R.G., finished his jail
sentence but was once again arrested for bootlegging. This time
the judge gave him the option to leave the county and never return.
He gladly fled, with “the officers glad to be rid of him!” according
to the newspaper article.
Spilled Corn and Rye
The Turlock Daily Journal featured a fascinating story on August
27th concerning a liquor still that was seized just across the county
line in Mariposa County. While traveling through Turlock Sunday
night, the liquor still’s operators, F.O. and W.E.B., were stopped
and arrested by policemen, Warner and Charles N. Sproule, for
possession of 15 gallons of whiskey hidden in the car’s trunk. The
arrested men gave their address as Mariposa but refused to reveal
the location of the liquor still. Stanislaus County Sheriff R.L. Dallas,
Deputy Sheriff Bart Hill, and the Mariposa County sheriff met that
night at G.G.’s ranch in Mariposa County where W.E.B. lived. They
questioned Mrs. W.E.B. at the ranch house, who refused to divulge
any information, but the officers found spilled corn and rye on a
trail leading into a canyon, known as Negro Gulch, ten miles east of
Mariposa. They followed the trail of corn and rye on a narrow
pathway, finding a liquor still that was the largest one discovered in
California at the time.
They searched all night, confiscating 100 gallons of freshly distilled
whiskey stored in barrels and ready to be shipped. They found 16
barrels of corn and rye mash, enough to make 1,500 gallons of
whiskey. Also confiscated were four sacks of sugar and five barrels
of molasses. The total value of the seizure was $40,000. There was
a 40-foot high tramway used to transport barrels of whiskey across
the canyon to be freighted out. Federal prohibition agents
dynamited the liquor still and took F.O. and Mr. and Mrs. W.E.B. to
Fresno and then to San Francisco for a federal court hearing. W.E.B.
had been court-martialed in the Army and served 14 months in a
———————— 220 ————————
military prison. He was allowed to rejoin the army in lieu of federal
prison sentencing for prohibition violations.
Jackass Brandy
In September 1920, M.C. was arrested in Modesto for transporting
a keg of wine in his car, telling officers that he bought the wine from
R.B. at his winery in Manteca. Stanislaus county sheriff officers
traveled to the winery posing as wine buyers. R.B. sold them wine,
giving them $400 to keep it quiet. Instead, he was arrested for selling
intoxicating wine, with 3,000 gallons of wine being seized. He was
jailed in Modesto, having bail set at $1,000. R.B. told authorities
that at one time he had a shipment of 10,000 gallons of wine, with
the 3,000 being all that remained of it. Modesto officers were granted
a warrant to search a residence owned by M.C., finding that he had
a quantity of “jackass brandy” on hand. (“Jackass brandy” was a
term applied to any intoxicating alcohol made from fermented fruit
juices. A drink of jackass “kicked like a mule and bit like a horse.”)
In Newman, T.M. was arrested by City Marshal Kiernahan for
possessing and transporting a four-gallon jug of wine, having been
removed from a railroad car. A Merced rancher, W.W.B., and his
ranch hand, F.O., were arrested in Turlock for transporting 17 gallons
of grappo, a type of brandy that was distilled from fermented grapes.
Each was fined $100 by a Fresno federal court for manufacturing
and transporting intoxicating liquor.
On September 9th, several raids were staged in Modesto by Police
Chief Lee Smith, Stanislaus County Sheriff R.L. Dallas, deputy
officers, and two federal prohibition agents. Six bootleg operations
were seized, resulting in arrests and confiscation of illegal liquor.
The largest seizure was at J.M.’s ranch on Grayson Road, where
800 gallons of homemade wine was found. J.M. was absent from
the scene but was found at his town residence, 625 7th Street, where
there was one gallon of jackass brandy. He had been prosecuted
twice before for violating local dry ordinances, all resulting in hung
juries.
It was thought that J.M. supplied wine to customers who were
arrested at several residences in Modesto that day, beginning with.
P.F., who was arrested at his 701 6th Street house for possessing two
gallons of wine and a quantity of jackass brandy. He had been
arrested a number of times for violating local dry ordinances and
would become known as the county’s chief bootlegger. J.W. was
arrested at his 515 G Street address for possessing 300 gallons of
wine and five gallons of jackass brandy. W.A. was arrested at his
618 16th Street home for possession of several pints of wine and
jackass brandy. There was a new batch brewing on the stove, when
authorities arrived. A shed contained an ice box and numerous
bottle caps, evidence of a flourishing bootleg operation. J.C. was
arrested at his 614 9th Street residence for possessing several gallons
of jackass brandy that he was selling for $10 a quart. The last house
raided in the extensive night operation was J.D.C.’s establishment
at 632 9th Street, the old Brewery Saloon, where several bottles of
jackass brandy were found. He had attempted to pour the liquor
out when the officers arrived but was stopped. His bartender, M.A.,
was also arrested. Twelve men had been arrested that evening and
transported to Sacramento for federal court hearings.
Summer- Autumn 2010
In October, J.C.K. was arrested for being intoxicated while driving a
loaded fruit truck in Modesto near the Tuolumne River bridge.
Superior Court Judge J.C. Needham fined him $500. Twelve
Modestans were apprehended on Christmas Day for intoxication.
Some were found sleeping in the courthouse park after they had
consumed a variety of alcoholic concoctions, such as, jackass
brandy, Jamaica ginger, lemon extract, orange bitters, pure alcohol,
and perfume, along with a quantity of illegal beer and wine. The
newspaper remarked, “The gang was making merry all over town.”
They appeared before Judge Rice.
On New Years Eve, three Turlock men were arrested in an Overland
automobile at 14th and F streets in Modesto. They were driving
north on Crows Landing Road, while intoxicated, striking a car with
a glancing blow. The driver of the wrecked car drove to Modesto
and contacted police, who made the arrests. They were apprehended
for intoxication and possession of ten quarts of homemade whiskey
and wine.
On January 26, 1921, Sheriff R.L. Dallas and federal prohibition
agents raided J.M.’s ranch again on Grayson Road, where they
found seven gallons of jackass brandy, 400 gallons of wine, several
barrels of mash, and a liquor still. J.M. was not available at the time,
but there were five charges levied against him from the evidence
found.
Hen Houses
On November 7, 1923, Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriff Owen
Kessel and Modesto Police Chief Lee Smith searched J.H.M.’s ranch
on Waterford Road, finding trap doors in three hen houses that led
to an underground storage room, where a quantity of liquor was
stored. Also found were a dismantled liquor still, chemicals, and
other bootlegging equipment. J.H.M. was released on $650 bail and
later fined $500 for his offenses.
W.H. of Turlock was booked by police for driving his car while
intoxicated. He was held on $2,000 bail. Owner of a cigar store on
West Main Street in Turlock, A.C.B., was arrested for selling a quart
of gin. He pleaded guilty, which resulted in a fine of $200 by Superior
Court Judge W.L. Fulkerth. His business license was revoked by
the city council. A.S. was apprehended on bootlegging charges in
Turlock, pleading not guilty, with bail being set at $800. The
Stanislaus County Hospital in Modesto reported the death of J.S.B.
from Wyoming, because of wood alcohol poisoning. He had worked
for a time in the area as a carpenter.
November 1923 was a busy month for prohibition violations. J.R.
and M.E.M. were arrested in Modesto at a rooming house, where
police found 21 pints of liquor. M.E.M. was sentenced by Judge
Rice to 180 days in jail, because he couldn’t pay the $250 fine.
Turlock City Marshall J.W. Burton stopped an inebriated man on
the street while it was dark, but the drunk surprisingly ran off.
Burton fired a warning shot, which spurred the drunk to run faster,
with the officer stopping pursuit. A few days later, the suspect was
apprehended. A.H. was charged with avoiding arrest, and being
drunk and disorderly. He was fined $175 for his conduct.
———————— 221 ————————
Reduced Crime
The Turlock Daily Journal claimed that recent prohibition
enforcement had reduced crime, confirmed by the county jail in
Modesto having only 22 prisoners, when it was known to hold 50100. In Newman, A.H., owner of a hotel, had his soft drink license
revoked, because he was selling intoxicating alcohol. He petitioned
the city council to reclaim his license but was informed that it was
permanently revoked.
Two miles east of Riverbank, Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriff
Owen Kessel and other deputies raided D.R.’s ranch, finding 500
gallons of wine and five gallons of whiskey. D.R. was charged with
possession of intoxicating alcohol. A shipping shed in Turlock,
next to the Tidewater Railroad line, was raided at night on December
1, 1923 by Police Officer Gaddy, apprehending the shed’s owner,
T.L., along with a few friends. A quantity of liquor was confiscated,
with all violators being charged with possession of intoxicating
liquor.
Local police were also busy on the state highway making arrests
for prohibition violations. In September 1924, police stopped a car
occupied by two men in Turlock, with one being from Oakland and
the other from Danville. Two bottles of wine were uncovered in the
car, with Judge Rice fining them $100 each for possession and
transporting intoxicating alcohol. T.S. was driving a heavy truck on
the state highway north of Turlock while intoxicated, causing him
to run a car into a ditch and bumping the rear of another truck. He
was arrested and held on $500 bond. In Turlock, R.C. was arrested
for the fifth time for being intoxicated. Judge Kilroy sternly told him
that he was a poor example to young boys, fining him $50 and
sentencing him to jail for 250 days. In October, R.B.A. was
apprehended in Turlock for possession of a half gallon of moonshine
whiskey, with his bail being set for $500.
The federal prohibition agent that had been working in Stanislaus
County during August 1924, moved into Merced County in October,
raiding five bootleg operations, confiscating jackass brandy,
moonshine, blended booze, along with Old Crow whiskey and Scotch
whiskey. One blind pig had 100 pints of moonshine, while another
one near Los Banos possessed 150 gallons of wine and 25 gallons
of moonshine. Another bootlegger had 500 gallons of wine, with
100 gallons ready to be sold. In Turlock, J.G. was fined $25 by Judge
F.J. Connor for intoxication, while N.E. was given a 25-day jail
sentence for the same offense, because he couldn’t pay the fine.
R.A. was given one week in jail for possessing and transporting
intoxicating liquor, after requesting clemency because of hardship.
Intoxicated Drivers
A Modesto News-Herald editorial on October 16, 1924 claimed that
most auto accidents were caused by intoxication and most cars
that were stopped for criminal reasons contained some type of
illegal alcohol. The writer noted that it would have been disastrous
if the automobile had been around in the heyday of the old saloons.
He asserted that prohibition existed because of “wife-beating,
industrial efficiency, pauperism, crime, and other such actions, now
with car accidents being added to that list.” In Newman, L.L.’s
house was raided by the city marshal and a night policeman, finding
Summer- Autumn 2010
jackass liquor in a pitcher. When the officers went to arrest him, he
tried to spill the liquor on the floor but was stopped. His fine was
$300.
While sitting in a car in front of New Park Restaurant in Turlock,
C.F. and A.T. were arrested for possessing a gallon and a half of
wine. Judge J.F. Conner fined them each $125. In Modesto, a San
Franciscan was taken into custody when his auto was stopped by
police on the state highway. He had 36 bottles of Scotch whiskey in
his Ford coupe. His bail was set at $500, while his wife, who was in
the car, wasn’t charged. In Modesto on Sunday, October 28, 1924,
police confiscated two jugs of jackass whiskey at the home of N.T.,
located at 809½ 3rd Street. He saw Judge Rice, who fined him $300
for possession.
On October 31st, numerous arrests for prohibition took place on
ranches in the Turlock area. A.S. pleaded guilty for possessing 400
gallons of wine on his Tegner Road property, being fined $400 and
given 200 days in jail. G.P. was arrested at his ranch near Hatch
Road for possession, while M.S.L. received a $350 fine and 175
days for his possession violation. E.G. was fined $300 for
possession, while J.B.S. was found guilty of operating a liquor still,
being fined $500 and given a sentence of 250 days in jail. Also, for
wine and whiskey possession, he was given an additional $500 fine
and 250 days.
Not in Oakdale
In November, two federal prohibition agents, who were dressed as
workmen, spent three days and nights in Oakdale trying to buy
alcohol, but no one took the bait. The newspaper editor was upset,
stating, “It is common knowledge that there are ranches where
wine can be obtained,” suggesting the agents should leave Oakdale
alone. He further claimed that Sierra mountain towns sold alcohol
openly at its old saloons, with some having liquor licenses.
The same federal prohibition agents were attack by an angry mob
in Escalon and were nearly killed. It began when the agents raided
the property of a prominent grape grower, three miles east of Escalon
on the main highway. When the agents were returning to their
rooming house in Escalon at one o’clock in morning, they were
accosted by an angry mob. One agent was captured, stripped of his
clothing, and a noose placed around his neck. There were cries of
“lynch him” from the crowd. The other agent scampered to the
rooming house where the agents stayed, grabbing a gun for
protection and telephoned Stockton police. Law enforcement
officers arrived quickly taking the two agents into custody,
transporting them safely back to Stockton. Some of the mob was
recognized by authorities, especially those who were known
troublemakers. No arrests were made or evidence gathered, but
subpoenas were sent from Sacramento federal court to some of the
mob, especially those who were known to have cried “lynch him.”
On that same day, November 5th, a federal prohibition agent, along
with the Mariposa County sheriff, arrested R.S. for a bootleg
operation in his grocery store, located at the Exchequer Dam
construction camp. After being prevented from entering the store
by a door guard, they arrested the guard, a clerk, and R.S., taking
———————— 222 ————————
them to Fresno for arraignment at a federal court. Also, two were
arrested at the camp for transporting liquor, one from Merced Falls
and the other from Stockton.
Women Bootleggers
Women were involved in bootlegging as well, as seen by arrests in
November 1924. One was a sensitive case, where a mother of six
was arrested for the manufacturing and possession of liquor. She
said she was bootlegging to support her family that included a
crippled child. When raiding officers entered a shed, they found
her with a shotgun by her side, working at her liquor still. They
found three barrels of mash and a quantity of corn whiskey. She
claimed that her husband wasn’t involved in her operation. Still
both husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. M.M., were arrested at their
ranch in the Claribel area.
Another raid occurred on November 11th, where D.D. was found
operating a speakeasy behind the Sylvan Clubhouse on the old
Bangs ranch. She had 25 customers in her house when it was raided
by Stanislaus County Sheriff Grat Hogin and his deputies. D.D. had
a funnel built into the floor attached to a pipe, where she planned to
pour containers of liquor just before being raided. She wasn’t quick
enough, being caught in the act. She was fined $250 and a jail
sentence was suspended because she agreed to leave the county
immediately. On Sunday morning, November 19th, two women and
three men were arrested at the “Roberts Resort” on River Road for
possession and selling of liquor, with their bail being set at $1,000
each. Two weeks later, not knowing about the arrests, two
bootleggers appeared at the resort with a supply of liquor and were
apprehended by authorities.
Before Judge Rice once more was truck driver E.B., who was arrested
for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, being charged also for
liquor possession. His bail was fixed at $1,000. He had been arrested
just two weeks prior for the same violation. Near Turlock on
November 22nd, two ranches were raided by Turlock Police Chief
Everett Gaddy, finding eight barrels of wine at the J.J. ranch, three
miles east of Turlock, and six barrels of wine found at the K. ranch,
one-half mile northwest of Turlock. J.D. and J.A. were found and
arrested under warrant for those bootlegging operations.
Strange Goings On
Riverbank Judge C.C. Staley was dismayed when his employee,
A.H.H., arrived at work intoxicated, offering the judge a drink from
his half empty flask. He asked Judge Staley, “If he would have a
drink to start the day’s procedures.” The city marshal was present
at the time, arresting A.H.H., taking him to Modesto for arraignment.
On November 30th, a San Francisco bootlegger was arrested in
Modesto, having four quarts of liquor in his car. He also carried a
customer list of prominent men, who lived in Modesto and Salida.
He had two police dog pups in his auto as well. Before finding the
stashed liquor, the police officers asked about the list. He told them
it was a list of people who were possible buyers for his pups. The
policemen noticed that after some of the names was written “no
good.” They asked him about it, with him explaining that those men
wouldn’t buy his pups. After a search of the car, they found liquor,
arresting him, with his bail being set at $500.
Summer- Autumn 2010
An article in the Modesto News-Herald in December 1924, reported
that the Eugene Bible University of Eugene, Oregon owned property
in Modesto that was raided by federal prohibition agents. The
newspaper stated that a man was arrested for selling intoxicating
liquor under the guise of the university. Later in the month, another
article appeared in News-Herald article, declaring that the earlier
article was incorrect in that the man was on the property illegally,
selling liquor, and not part of the university. An attorney
representing the university came to Modesto to resolve the issue.
The newspaper alleged that the News-Herald was under new
management now, and the incorrect report was from older ownership.
In December 1924, arrests for drunken driving and liquor possession
continued in Modesto. A.G.C. was apprehended for being intoxicated
on the state highway near Borden’s Condensery after his auto
struck and demolished a new car driven by an angry owner. In
Newman, Marshal M.H. Lockridge and Constable William G.
Newsome raided the Commercial Hotel, which was under the
operation of T.F., finding two bottles of intoxicating alcohol. The
Cabin Poolroom, next door, was also raided, but no liquor was found.
The hotel had been shutdown before for bootlegging, when owned
by someone else. Deputies searched a ranch owned by A.M., onehalf mile from Modesto on River Road, finding five barrels of wine
stored in a tankhouse. A.M. told authorities that it was “for his own
use.” A court date was set in Ceres before Judge Gondring.
Notorious P.F.
Stanislaus County’s most notorious bootlegger, P.F., was arrested
again at his residence 701 6th Street in Modesto, finding 20 quart
bottles of wine and a bottle of jackass brandy. He was released on
$500 bail and appeared before Judge Rice. Since 1917, P.F. had paid
$3,300 in fines for his bootlegging activity but seemed to have little
difficulty in paying them. His latest offense was in January 1924,
when he was fined $500. On December 16, 1924, sheriff deputies
raided the ranch owned by H.S.M., located two miles east of Oakdale,
where 750 gallons of wine and six gallons of whiskey were found.
The wine was discovered hidden in the outbuildings, while the
whiskey was uncovered in the ranch house. H.S.M. told officers
the liquor was for his hired hands.
C.E. was apprehended by traffic officers on Tully Road near
Modesto. He immediately smashed two jugs of liquor on the ground,
but resourceful officer, I.H. Whims, found a discarded sponge and
mopped up some of the evidence. Judge Rice set bail for C.E. at
$500. He had served a six-month sentence for possessing and
transporting liquor the previous winter. Another notorious
bootlegger was J.R. from Escalon. On December 21st, he was stopped
by Police Chief Lee E. Smith and Officers F.E. Turner and W.L.
Wooley on 8th Street in Modesto for driving over 30 mph in his
Dodge roadster. Concealed in his auto were nine gallons of jackass
brandy stored in kegs, jugs, and demijohns. They also found seven
new empty kegs. J.R. told officers at first that he was just carrying
groceries in his trunk.
In December, federal prohibition agent E.K. Anderson was busy
just south of Turlock, in Merced County, near the communities of
Hilmar and Los Banos, apprehending eight for wine and whiskey.
The offenders were fined a total of $2,000 by Judge T.W. Pedige in
———————— 223 ————————
Hilmar. O.O. of Los Banos had 365 gallons of wine concealed on his
property. Near Modesto, G.Q. was arrested on his ranch by sheriff’s
deputies for keeping several gallons of intoxicating liquor in the
basement of his home. Judge Rice fined him $150.
Dead Rat
On November 10, 1925, Stanislaus County Sheriff Deputies Harvey
Wright, F.E. Lockridge, and Owen Kessel raided the J.G. ranch at 5
p.m. finding 16 gallons of whiskey and a 25-gallon liquor still that
was under operation. J.G. confessed that he had been making
whiskey from fermented peaches, grapes, and watermelons, selling
it for $7 a gallon. The liquor still was located in the tankhouse,
amidst a horde of pesky gnats, where officers found a dead rat in
the mash. Judge Rice fined J.G. $1,500 and warned him not to appear
in his court again, because he would receive a stiff jail sentence.
Ten days later, sheriff deputies arrested another rancher, M.R., for
possessing 50 gallons of mash and 150 gallons of moonshine liquor.
Modesto Police Officers A. Peterson and E.E. Arlington
apprehended J.C.C. for driving while intoxicated on 9th Street. He
claimed he was not drunk but had only taken a drink. Officers saw
otherwise, booking him to appear before Judge I.W. Fulkerth. In
December 1925, T.B. was stopped by Modesto Police Chief E.W.
Gaddy, finding bootleg liquor in his car. Riding along with him were
his wife and children. Judge Needham offered him an option of
paying $250 or spending 125 days in jail. T.B. took the latter, because
he didn’t have the money.
On New Year’s Day 1926, a Modesto police officer chased down
G.L. in his speeding car, finding gallon jars and jugs of whiskey. Bail
was set at $1,000 and $500 for his passenger, M.S. In the alley,
between 9th and 10th streets in Modesto, O.H. was arrested for
possession of a jug of liquor and fined $50. The county’s famed
bootlegger, P.F., had his house at 701 6th Street padlocked for one
year by District Attorney W.J. Brown. The house had been the
center of P.F.’s bootlegging activity for years and a nuisance to the
city. Judge Rice fined L.A. $150 for possession of liquor and J.C.
$300 for the same charge, police finding them with liquor at the
Europa Hotel.
Call It Square
On January 20, 1926, there was a short drama in Judge J.M.
Gondring’s court in Ceres, when senior citizen, D.L., was tried for
possession. F.S. took care of the elderly man but had not been paid
for her work. This caused her to contact local police concerning
liquor stored beneath D.L.’s bed. With a search warrant, the police
entered D.L.’s house, finding him convalescing on his bed. They
found the liquor under it, charging him with possession. D.L. told
them, and later the judge, that the liquor was for his own use. Judge
Gondring saw it otherwise, being convinced that he shared it with
friends. The judge remarked that because of his age, he would be
light on his sentencing, asking D.L. if he could pay $100. He could
not and was therefore sentenced to 50 days in jail. At this point,
F.S. remarked that if D.L. paid her all the money he owed her, she
would pay his $100 fine and “call it square.” D.L. countered with,
“Pay you? You got me heaved in jail, so why should I pay you?”
The confiscated liquor was poured down the sink in the courtroom
Summer- Autumn 2010
as D.L. left to serve his sentence, and F.S. exited without her
earnings.
Gin Bootlegger
On January 22nd, Modesto police uncovered a bootleg operation
that supplied prominent citizens with gin in town. Police Officers
E.E. Arlington and V. Larsen raided the home of C.S.G. at 111 Park
Street in Modesto, where they found three 5-gallon kegs of gin,
two empty 5-gallon kegs, hundreds of bottle caps, three dozen
empty gin bottles, cork-fastening machine, 190 proof alcohol,
distilled water, and Gordon Gin labels. Apparently, C.S.G. was
bottling bootleg gin and selling it as Gordon Gin, a well-known gin
brand. He told officers, “I was a fool to do this. A friend told me to
go into the business. I have not been at it long.” He also noted that
the gin was of good quality. While officers were searching the
house, a young man pulled up in a nice car and rang the doorbell.
Larsen showed him his badge, causing the young man to scamper
to his car and drive off quickly.
In Modesto, E.M. was arrested for drunken driving, being fined
$300 and his driving license being suspended for one year, it being
his third arrest. He told the judge that he was an auto salesman, and
his customers were constantly offering him liquor to drink. It was
reported that 50 percent of the Stanislaus County Superior Court’s
cases were for drunken driving. Modesto Police Officers Adolph
Peterson and Owen Kessel arrested J.C. and his wife for possession
and selling liquor at the Europa Hotel, located at 602 9th Street in
Modesto. In January 1926, Modesto police reported there had been
30 arrests for drunkenness during the month.
Hay Barn
On January 21, 1926, Deputy Sheriffs Owen Kessel, Zack Drake,
and Adolph Peterson, along with Oakdale Constable A.T Korrigan,
raided a ranch operated by H.S.M. and B.F., three miles from Oakdale.
It was a huge bust, confiscating 1,000 gallons of wine, 300 gallons
of jackass whiskey, and two liquor stills. The liquor was found
stored beneath the farm house, having access through a trap door.
One still was found in the barn, with parts for another still located
under hay and wood piles. At the time of the raid, H.S.M. was
interrupted while he was mixing a barrel of mash. He had reported
several months before that his ranch had been robbed and a shed
burned. H.S.M. and B.F. pleaded not guilty, with bail set at $4,000
each. Their trial was held on February 12th, ending in a deadlocked
jury, 11 to 1 for conviction. The judge declared the case was a
mistrial, because of unusual circumstances, stating the case would
be retried.
In February 1926, Turlock police stopped F.A. while he was driving
at the east end of Mitchell Street. He was arrested for transporting
liquor and held on $500 bail. At his trial, Judge F.J. Conner dismissed
the selected jury, because defense attorney Sam V. Cornell
contended there was unavoidable bias. Federal prohibition officer
from San Francisco, Dan Steel, was an undercover agent, who knew
F.A., having been in his home and talked many times to him on the
street. F.A. denied the meetings with the undercover agent.
Unfortunately, nothing further was reported in the newspaper about
the case. Federal prohibition agents, being spread thinly throughout
———————— 224 ————————
the state, drifted from one county to the next, raiding known
bootlegger operations, confiscating liquor, destroying liquor stills
and equipment, and making arrests. It had been a year since a
federal officer had been in Stanislaus County.
Judge Rice
On July 22, 1926, federal prohibition officers from San Francisco
and District Attorney William J. Brown made several raids within a
20-mile radius of Modesto, arresting five, with Judge Rice fining a
total of $850. These arrests were made at “notorious bootlegging
establishments,” reported the newspaper. At Hotel Riverbank a
quantity of moonshine was found, arresting G.W. for possession.
Six miles west of Ceres, rancher J.P.R. was apprehended for
moonshine, jackass brandy, and wine. Near Oakdale on the OakdaleEscalon highway, B. M. and his wife were charged with alcohol
possession at their home. Since they were foreign aliens, they faced
the risk of being deported. Four miles southeast of Modesto, on
River Road, M.L.F. was arrested for a quantity of jackass liquor. He
had been before Judge Rice before, being fined this time $300. He
told the judge that if he appeared in court again, just to shoot him,
because his children were beginning to understand his arrests.
Judge Rice told M.L.F., “If I had shot all the persons who offered it,
in cases of this sort, I would have a graveyard that would stretch
from here to New York.” It had become a practice that any confiscated
liquor of poor quality was poured into the street drain in front of
the District Attorney Brown’s office.
Judge Rice was busy on October 19, 1926, with R.F. being charged
with drunken driving. His bail was set at $1,000. C.V. of Keyes had
the same violation, with the judge assigning the same bail. There
were three charged with liquor possession in Modesto, with each
being fined $50. J.M. was fined $10 for transporting liquor, while
S.E. was arrested in Turlock for having 17 pint bottles of jackass
brandy in his car, costing him a fine of $350. In November, drunken
driving arrests continued. G.L. was apprehended for crashing into
another car on McHenry Avenue, while intoxicated. There were
four bottles of liquor in his car, resulting in a fine of $100. S.W.M. of
Stockton ran a car into a fence on Crows Landing Road, resulting in
an arrest for intoxication. There was another wreck caused by an
inebriated driver in Modesto. J.R., who lived on F Street in Modesto,
crashed into another auto. His bail was set for $1,000. R.H.B. was
stopped while driving his car intoxicated on the state highway, with
his bail fixed at $1,000.
In November 1926, G.L.M. of Melrose Avenue and J.T.M. of High
Street in Modesto were arrested for delivering liquor, while E.E.,
who lived on 9th Street was apprehended for possessing four 1gallon jugs and six pints of whiskey. Her charges were for
possession, transportation, and the selling of liquor. P.F. was back
in the headlines, but this time his wife, R.F., was arrested, along
with a friend, J.A., both being charged with possession of liquor
and for being a public nuisance. Bail was set for $1,000 each.
Modesto police held its annual “pouring party” on Thanksgiving
Day morning, when it dumped hundreds of gallons of confiscated
liquor into the city’s drainage system. Thrown out were several
barrels of hard liquor and wine, along with quality liquor that had
well-known labels.
Summer- Autumn 2010
In Modesto, C.F.R. was charged with transporting intoxicating liquor,
being placed on $500 bail, while J.C. of Turlock was guilty of the
same charge, being fined $25. It was reported that in 1926 that
Modesto police had averaged an arrest for drunkenness each day
of the year, 120 more arrests than in 1925. Among those arrested for
drunkenness in 1926, 100 had been fined for driving under the
influence. In 1926, there were 103 prohibition violators in the county
for possession, sale, transportation, and manufacturing of liquor.
Total fines were nearly $8,500, with many violators being given jail
sentences, because they couldn’t pay the fines.
Billy Club
On New Year’s Eve 1926, a Tracy man was arrested in Modesto with
a 5-gallon keg of whiskey in his car, costing him a jail sentence of
180 days, because he couldn’t pay the $500 fine. In January 1927,
S.H. was charged with possession of a quantity of jackass brandy
found on his property on 8th Street in Turlock. On February 15th
while intoxicated on a Turlock street, A.B. turned cankerous, causing
problems with two boys, who went to the police department
reporting the disturbance. Turlock Police Officers Bob Rawlings
and John Ruthledge attempted to arrest A.B. when a scuffle broke
out. A.B. was hit on the head with a billy club by Rawlings. The
head wound became infected, causing A.B. to be hospitalized for
treatment. On February 23rd, Turlock Police Chief Alex Stahl resigned
his office, without a public explanation. It was thought to have
been because of A.B.’s clubbing.
Baxter Service Station on West Main Avenue in Turlock had a
surprise on March 5, 1927, when C.W.W. drove his car, while
intoxicated, into signs and other objects at the gas station. He and
his companion, L.M.R., were arrested for disturbing the peace, with
bail set at $50 each by Judge Dan E. Kilroy. On July 18th, four laborers
were arrested in Turlock for possession and sale of liquor. They
had stored the liquor in a shed and were sentenced to jail for 150
days each, because they couldn’t pay the individual $300 fines. On
August 29th, a store was raided at Marshall and South Front streets
in Turlock, with the clerk tossing bottles of wine out the window.
She was apprehended, and the wine confiscated for evidence. The
store’s owner, I.K., was fined $100.
Largest Still
The largest liquor still operation in the county was discovered on
September 19, 1927, at a Denair ranch, owned by J.M. The raid had
been conducted by Stanislaus County Sheriff Grat Hogin and his
deputies. The still was located in a barn, concealed by grape boxes.
The still’s runoff was through a pipe, draining into an irrigation
ditch, covered by berry vines. Found were four 50-gallon copper
liquor stills, with burners, coils, and tanks. Also found were 1,000
gallons of mash, a quantity of sugar, and five gallons of pure alcohol.
J.M.’s bail was set at $1,500. In October, R.B., who had worked in
Ceres and Turlock, was arrested in Modesto with liquor in his car.
Modesto police knew there was a bootleg operation in the eastern
hills that transported liquor through the county, and now they felt
they had a lead with the arrest of R.B. Nothing further was reported
in the newspapers on the matter.
Problems arose in Sonora when an intoxicated J.F. was threatening
the public with a pistol at a hotel. He had another gun in his coat
———————— 225 ————————
pocket, which he drew when a Tuolumne County deputy approached
him to make an arrest. J.F. shot the deputy point blank in the neck,
turning, and running from the scene. The deputy was still alert
enough to empty his revolver at the running J.F., striking him,
causing him to tumble. Both were taken to the hospital, where it
was believed J.F. had been crazed by cheap bootleg liquor. J.F. was
related to P.F., Stanislaus County’s major bootlegging headache.
In December 1927, a quantity of liquor was found in a raid on M.H.’s
house at 314 Marshall Street in Turlock, costing him a fine of $500.
W.J.T., owner of a cigar store, soft drink counter, and pool room,
was arrested for the possession and selling bitters, a medicinal
beverage. Turlock police had issued a warning to businesses about
selling bitters, because it was unlawful under Turlock dry ordinances
and the federal Volstead Act. Three Turlock youth were arrested for
possession of three gallons of wine and placed on probation by
local authorities.
Speakeasy
At 7:30 p.m. on October 7, 1928, Stanislaus County Sheriff Deputies
Harvey Wright, Owen Kessel, Jack Lockridge, and Jack Hammett
entered the ranch owned by E.N.D., located near the Stanislaus
River bridge, north of Modesto. They saw that the barn door was
opened and headed towards it, but it closed suddenly, being barred
from the inside. They banged on it, finally tearing it down. Inside
they found a large quantity of whiskey, jackass brandy, and gin,
along with card tables, a lengthy bar, and a hardwood dance floor.
They had stumbled onto an operating speakeasy and gambling
operation. They discovered a sack filled with silver coins and
currency worth $600, along with poker chips, playing cards, and
dice. E.N.D., his wife, along with B.R. and V.N. were arrested for
various prohibition and gambling violations.
Later in October, P.L. was arrested in Modesto, being fined $500 for
possession and sentenced to six months in jail by Judge L.W.
Fulkerth, because this was his third prohibition arrest. Modesto
truck driver J.M. was driving intoxicated south on McHenry Avenue,
near Morris Avenue, when he lost control, hit two cars, and smashed
into a tree. No one was injured, but J.M. was charged with drunken
driving and bodily assault with a vehicle, having bail set at $2,000.
Driving intoxicated on Crows Landing Road near Modesto was
P.M. who was arrested by traffic officers, after driving into another
car. His bail was set at $750. The same day, G.M. was apprehended
for drunken driving two miles north of Turlock.
In November 1928, W.S.M. of Hughson was stopped in his auto on
7th Street in Modesto, being arrested by traffic officers for possession
of intoxicating alcohol. He was released on $1,000 bail and scheduled
to appear before Judge B.C. Hawkins. A Modesto businessman,
O.L.E., was apprehended for drunken driving by city police, and
A.L.S. from Livingston was stopped in Modesto for driving
intoxicated on the state highway, having a wife and three children
in the car. The police found a gallon of liquor in the car, and his wife,
who was holding a baby, produced a pint of whiskey that was
concealed in her clothing. Also arrested on the state highway near
Salida were F.L. and H.M. for having liquor in their car, both being
fined $75.
Summer- Autumn 2010
Drunken Drivers
Judge J.C. Needham was very disturbed about the low fines and
brief jail sentences given to drunken drivers by his some of his
colleagues, after being told of personal hardships. He remarked to
the press that if anything, the violators should be charge
considerably more for fines and given lengthier jail sentences. He
cited a recent local case, in which E.H. was arrested for driving
while intoxicated, with his wife and two small children in the car. He
was fined $400 and reprimanded. Needham said he should have
been given the maximum fine of $1,000 and a year in jail. He declared,
“Something drastic must be done to check this ever increasing
menace of the drunken driver. It seems light sentences are doing no
good. A heavier jail sentence should aid in alleviating the
condition.”
In December 1928, J.C.C. of Oakdale and his wife were arrested in a
raid on Union Hotel, being charged with possession of intoxicating
liquor. They were fined $250 each by Judge O.N. Wilkinson. Four
federal prohibition agents stormed a ranch on December 22nd, owned
by G.C., located on Old Oakdale Road, six miles from Modesto. It
was a major raid, where agents found two liquor stills and equipment
in the barn, along with 19 vats for mash, having the holding capacity
of 10,000 gallons. Also, there were 13 sacks of sugar and an oil
burning boiler. The bootleg operation was worth $5,000 and could
produce 100 gallons of moonshine per day. The liquor was being
transported to outside cities for the holidays, where it was bottled
and labeled. The agents arrested G.C. and T.W., with T.W. claiming
he bought the ranch a year prior and leased it to G.C., who was the
bootlegger.
Twelve Modestans were arrested by federal prohibition agents on
December 23, 1928, for possessing and selling liquor. Some of the
men worked at local hotels, with bail being set at $300 each. On
December 24th, W.R.M. was arrested for drunken driving in Modesto,
with the judge fining him $200. W.R.M. remarked gloomily to the
judge, “There is no Santa Claus.” L.R. and J.S. were arrested
Christmas night for possession of alcohol, being fined $200 each.
Deadly Liquor
In October 1929, J.M.’s pool hall was raided by Turlock police,
finding a quart of gin. He had been fined $500 a few months earlier
for possessing and selling liquor. This time the judge revoked his
business license. In Merced, R.D.E. died from drinking bootleg
liquor that had lethal levels of wood alcohol. He was at the home of
C.W. playing cards and drinking liquor with others. Becoming ill, he
was placed on a bed, where he succumbed. The men told authorities
that they had purchased the liquor from a taxicab driver but didn’t
know who he was. District Attorney F.M. Ostrander declared that
“a new war would be waged on bootleggers for this.”
On September 13, 1930, local Turlock storeowner, W.J.T., and E.B.,
a taxicab driver were arrested for possession of liquor. E.B. was
fined $200, while W.J.T. was released on $300 bail pending a trial. In
Merced County on December 6th, federal, state, and county officers
raided the E.H. ranch, six miles northwest of the city of Merced that
had been raided once before in 1928. This time the agents found
45,000 gallons of mash in 12 vats, but unfortunately, they missed
———————— 226 ————————
seizing an enormous shipment of bootleg liquor that departed earlier.
Eight men were arrested, including E.H.
A year later, on September 23, 1931, R.O. died at a drinking party in
Merced, after consuming wine that contained deadly amounts of
strychnine. Arrested and charged with murder were a father and
son, who sold the poisoned wine to R.O. A chemist tested the wine
and R.O.’s blood, finding strychnine in each. The grand jury
examined the evidence but didn’t find it compelling to indict the
two, forcing District Attorney Ostrander to furiously dismiss the
case.
In Turlock, B.F.W. was apprehended at his home in September 1931,
where he had a quantity of liquor. His bail was set at $400. He had
been a fruit shipper, living on Locust Street. Tragedy struck near
Patterson when E.K. was found mortally wounded. Before he died
at the hospital, he whispered what had occurred. He was in the
upper story of his house during the evening and heard intruders
downstairs. He descended the stairs and was seized, clubbed
unconscious, and a burlap sack placed over his head. Neighbors
found him, rushing him to a Modesto hospital, where he died. The
murderers had been stealing wine, when he interrupted them.
Judge Kilroy
In September 1932, there was a dispute between Turlock Judge Dan
E. Kilroy, federal prohibition agents, and Stanislaus County District
Attorney R.R. Fowler. It stemmed from Judge Kilroy commenting in
a newspaper interview that he did not think federal prohibition
agents were doing an effective job locally, because they were
arresting “small fries” when they should be after the “big shots.”
To send a message, he began fining the small time prohibition
violators just $10 each for their offenses, when brought in by federal
agents. In most cases the offenders were arrested for a small quantity
of homemade wine and whiskey for their own use. Judge Kilroy
told the press that there was a “beer baron” in the county and a
number of beer joints operating openly. He asserted:
This court knows it is impossible for the district attorney or
any other officer to arrest all bootleggers at one time, but I do
expect to see an honest effort made to bring in more than one or
two bootleggers out of 18 or 20 allegedly operating in the county.
It is common knowledge that several bootlegger establishments
have existed just north of Turlock [primarily on Syracuse Street]
for over a year where it is alleged minors, both boys and girls,
have been able to obtain liquor.
Kilroy declared that until the well-known bootlegging operators
were seized in the county, he would continue to assign slight fines
for petty violations. He commented further that the county shouldn’t
be after fine money but should want fair justice. District Attorney
Fowler remarked that if Kilroy continues to levy low fines then his
prohibition cases will be referred to federal courts. Kilroy stated
that he had meted out heavy fines when the sheriff’s office held a
number of raids, arresting real bootleggers. On October 13, 1932,
Sheriff Deputies F.E. Lockridge and Jack Hammett searched a house
on Syracuse Street in Turlock, finding no one but confiscated three
pints of whiskey. There was a smaller dwelling behind the house,
where they found J.M.R., who was arrested for the confiscated
three pints of whiskey. The newspaper reported, “The case was of
Summer- Autumn 2010
special significance here, because of recent testimony about
Syracuse Street, Turlock’s notorious ‘bootleg row’ located just
north of the city limits.” J.M.R. was tried in Judge Kilroy’s court,
with the jury finding him not guilty, because the illegal whiskey was
not found in his house but in the other house on the lot.
Possibly responding to Kilroy’s previous complaint, on October
20th, eight bootleggers were arrested near Turlock for operating a
liquor still, possessing liquor, and for conspiracy to act against
prohibition law. The accused were transported to the federal court
in Fresno. Five were arrested in Turlock on November 7th by federal
prohibition agents for possession and were sent to Stockton to be
arraigned in federal court. The next day, agents again were raiding
residents, and this time it was on Geer Road in Turlock, arresting
two men for possession and sale of intoxicating liquor, along with
conspiracy to jointly violate prohibition law. For 1932, Modesto
police arrested 326 for prohibition offenses, with October being the
highest with 46. Most of the violations were for drunkenness, with
the others being for liquor possession, transportation,
manufacturing, and sale.
C. Brothers
On February 9, 1933, major arrests took place in Modesto in regard
to kidnapping, assault, and violation of prohibition laws. It began
on February 4th, when M.C. was driving his truck from the San
Joaquin Valley filled with 85 5-gallon tins of bootleg liquor worth
$2,300. He was to deliver the load to Oakland, but while traveling on
the road in Livermore, a car containing two men drove across the
road stopping his truck. They were armed, ordering him to drive his
truck to Manteca, where two other men joined the kidnappers. The
truck and the auto were then driven to Farmington, where the liquor
was unloaded. M.C. warned the men if they didn’t release him, they
were “headed for big trouble.” His truck was returned to him, empty
of the liquor, and M.C. was told to leave but to keep quiet about the
hijacking. He drove to Oakland and reported the incident to law
enforcement authorities.
Through M.C., the Oakland police learned that the hijackers were
four brothers, N.C., S.C., P.C., and A.C., who were known criminals.
In fact, they were wanted for questioning by the Stanislaus County
Sheriff’s Department for a recent brawl near Modesto in which
several were injured. It was discovered that the brothers had lived
in Farmington at one time but were now living at 314 Hackberry
Avenue in Modesto. Modesto Police Chief Lee E. Smith worked
with Oakland authorities to piece the crime together. Another person,
E.V. was thought to be involved, who lived on Kansas Avenue in
Modesto.
While the brothers were sleeping at their Modesto house, Modesto
Police Captain E.E. Arlington, along with patrolmen William King,
Hubert Dunn, Emil Schmidt, and Merle Crosby, plus Oakland officers,
arrested three of the brothers. One brother reached for his gun, but
when he saw the number of weapons pointed at him, he thought
better of it. The police found three pistols and a shotgun in the
house. The fourth brother surrendered later to police, while
Stanislaus County Sheriff Grat Hogin and Deputy Jack Hammett
apprehended E.V. at a Kansas Avenue speakeasy. They were all
———————— 227 ————————
————————
Stanislaus Historical Quarterly ————————
charged with kidnapping, assault, and violating prohibition laws.
At the trial held in Modesto on February 24th, with Judge Manuel J.
Clark presiding, M.C. told the court that E.V. was not involved, just
the brothers. The brothers thought their stunt was only between
fellow bootleggers and wouldn’t involve the law. Obviously, they
were wrong. Unfortunately, the story ends here, because no further
articles appeared in the newspaper concerning the incident.
On February 11, 1933, federal prohibition agents crossed the
Stanislaus River by tractor near Riverbank to raid a bootleg
operation. Nine were arrested, being charge with manufacturing
liquor and conspiracy to collectively violate prohibition laws. They
were from the Riverbank and Oakdale area. Bail was set at $2,500
each. One claimed that he was just on the ranch to borrow some
equipment and was not a bootlegger. The federal agents told the
newspaper that the confiscated liquor still had been supplying San
Francisco with liquor. The operation was capable of producing 150
to 200 gallons of moonshine a day. Local law enforcement
departments were miffed, because federal agents hadn’t confided
in them about the raid.
Joe and Papino
On March 4th, two sheepherders, T.M. and V.F., were riding in their
auto, “an old open job,” according to the newspaper account, along
with their two dogs, Joe and Papino. While V.F. was navigating the
intersection at East Main and Front streets in Turlock, he collided
with another vehicle. Turlock Police Chief E.W. Gaddy and Officer
Al Dodson arrested the two, taking them to the city jail with their
two dogs. T.M. asked Dodson, “’Wontcha have a little drink with
me, sheriff?” The officer asked if he had a bottle on him, which he
did, hidden in a blanket he was carrying. T.M. handed the bottle to
the officer, who asked him if the stuff was any good? T.M.
responded, “’It sure is, sheriff. It’s good enough to get drunk on.
Come on sheriff, have a little drink with me.” Dodson then
confiscated the liquor and locked the two up, along with their dogs.
In the meantime, seeing that the men only had $1.62 between them
and the vehicle they struck was barely damaged, Turlock Judge
Harry O. Carlson told Dodson to release them, but they had to
leave town immediately. Once they sobered up, the men, along with
their dogs, headed out of town in their “old open job.” When T.M.
was exiting the jail, he said to his dogs, “Come, Joe, Papino, this is
no place for us.”
Big Time Bootlegging
In Modesto, on November 6th, A.R. was driving an auto when he
struck another vehicle at the intersection of 9th and H streets. He
was arrested, along with E.M., for having 11 gallons of wine in the
car. On November 10th, five federal prohibition agents conducted a
major seizure, when they raided a bootleg operation along the San
Joaquin River, about two miles from the Crows Landing Road bridge.
The illegal distillery was hidden in a crude building among trees
and brush, far from public roads. As the agents approach the site,
they began to smell liquor. They came upon two men, who had just
changed work shifts with others. Seeing a vehicle speeding away
with the other workers, the agents shot out the tires, but the driver
drove on. The agents arrested the two workers, being told by them
that a truck loaded with liquor had left earlier for San Francisco.
The agents found a liquor still that could manufacture 1,500 gallons
of booze in 24 hours, along with eight vats, each having 10,000
gallons of mash. There were 100 sacks of sugar, 153 empty 5-gallon
cans, and a large amount of equipment. It was a total investment of
$50,000 and was linked to a major San Francisco liquor syndicate.
The two violators were taken to Stockton for trial at a federal court.
Open for Business
In early December, the first liquor store opened in Turlock after 23
years at corner of Main and Front streets, owned by A.M. Police
Chief E.W. Gaddy had warned A.M. several times that he needed to
have a business license, costing $50. Having not obtained the license,
Gaddy closed the liquor store on a Saturday afternoon, with A.M.
offering to pay the $50 to keep it open. There was a problem though.
The city clerk’s office closed at noon on Saturday and wouldn’t
open again until Monday. A.M. was upset but obtained his license
on Monday. At least, he was back in business after waiting a day,
while many had waited a long dry spell of two decades to drink a
beer legally in town. Prohibition had changed the lives for many in
Stanislaus County, which was altered once again with the end of
America’s dry experiment. Written by Robert LeRoy Santos
Anti-Saloon Members Inspecting Leaflets
Confiscated Liquor After Raid
Web Photo
Web Photo

(Summer-Autumn 2010) [Prohibition]

Transcription

Similar documents

Roaring 20s Notes

PROHIBITION: `TUE NOBLE EXPERIMENT` RJ. Maddox Tbe United

BESSIE SMITH

Oktoberfest - Camp Richardson

Live Music by The John Romagnoli Steel Drum Band

FREE SAVE on BEER CAN KOOZIE

With 36 beer tap handles, we at iron pig alehouse keep a variety of

OF PROHIBITION

4th of july Early Deadlines for Classified