The people versus the liquor traffic. Speeches of John B. Finch, delivered in the prohibition campaigns of the United States and Canada

Front matter

Shelf -HV^O S3

Jtf

metcicA,

Introduction

Constitutional Prohibition is fast becoming the watchword of the hour. The people of the nation are becoming more and more restive under the increasing burden of the liquor traffic, and are determined to take the question into their own hands. This is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The license system has been tried for more than two hundred years, and under its fostering care the evils of intemperance have grown to colossal proportions. Highlicensed whiskey destroys manhood and debases womanhood, and beggars children just as quickly and as fast as the lowest of the low-priced licenses. The evil is in the drink. The traffic is on trial for its life. The people, in their sovereign capacity at the ballot-box, are the highest tribunal and the fountain of all power. This is the next great question before the American people to be settled at the ballot-box. The conflict between the saloon and the home will continue with increasing force and power until it is settled, and settled right. When settled by the voice of the people in their sovereign capacity, it should go into the bedrock of the Constitution. Already the States of Kansas, Maine, Iowa, and Rhode Island have, by overwhelming majorities, given prohibition place in the fundamental laws of the State. Iowa was cheated out of a constitutional amendment by a technicality, but the agitation has given her an iron-clad prohibitory law which has been of untold benefit to the State. A majority of votes were undoubtedly cast for the amendment in

IV INTRODUCTION.

Michigan, but the people of that State, too, have byfraud been deprived of the fruits of their victory.

The Legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have voted to submit a prohibitory amendment to a direct vote of the people, and in a dozen more States constitutional prohibition is the leading question before the people. Hence it is all-important that the people should be thoroughly informed and enlightened upon every phase of this most important subject. Of all the men who have been before the American public to discuss this question, Mr. John B. Finch stands foremost for clear perception, sound logic, apt illustration, and convincing argument. The lectures which are gathered in this volume, though delivered in different parts of the country to meet special emergencies, will be found to contain argument and statistics of very great value in the Constitutional Amendment campaigns now being carried on in different parts of the country. Mr. Finch has dedicated his great talents and wide-spread influence to the cause of Prohibition. He has made it his life study, and this volume goes forth as his free-will offering for the cause , to which he has dedicated himself.

The prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating beverages, is the only proper solution and righteous settlement of this whole question. Wherever honestly tried it has proved the greatest of blessings. In Maine, Kansas, and Iowa, the volume of liquor sold and drank has been reduced tenfold. Blessings follow in its train. Prosperity comes in when liquor goes out. Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment, vitalized by Prohibitory Statutes stringently enforced, will usher in an era of peace, prosperity and happiness never before known or realized in the civilized world. J. N. STEARNS.

New York, May t, 1887.

Contents

PAGE

Introduction, . . . . . . . . iii

I, Why Constitutional Prohibition, . . . i II. A Statement of the Case, 13

II. A Statement Of The Case

An Address delivered before the Northwestern Convocation of Temperance Workers at Lake Bluff, Illinois, August 27, 1881.

Ladies and Gentlemen : Some months since I received a letter from our mutual friend, Dr. Jutkins, in which he requested me to deliver an address at this Convocation. I replied that I should attend the Convocation, but preferred to remain silent, as a learner at the feet of older men. Another letter gave me to understand that no excuse would be accepted, therefore an address was prepared for this occasion ; but, since coming upon the grounds, I have heard much which leads me to think it better to leave the manuscript, and talk to you as one worker to other workers, on the present aspects of the reform.

I shall talk to you plainly, positively ; and if I bore you, charge it to Dr. Jutkins, for he alone is responsible for my appearing before you.

In discussing the question of temperance, one fact more than all others I would impress on your minds at the commencement ; that is, that the question of the existence of the drink traffic and drink habit must be settled in this country. It cannot be laughed down, sneered down, jeered down, or blackguarded down, and there is not money enough in the blood-stained coffers of the liquor power of this nation to buy enough votes to long prevent the entire defeat of the liquor oligarchy at the hands of this people.

This statement may be considered over-sanguine, and yet, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the man or woman who insists that this great movement is caused by mere temporary excitement, must be a careless student of social problems. From the day the

14 THE PEOPLE VS. THE TTQUOR TRAFFIC.

temperance movement started in this country it has never gone backwards.

A few months since, curiosity prompted me to write to State officers in different States whose Legisktures were in session last winter, asking them for the record of legislative sessions ten years ago, and also the record of the sessions held during the last winter, and I found this to be true — that, of the Legislatures of ten years ago, there was not one which discussed the question of the prohibition of the liquor traffic, while the Legislatures of the past winter, without a single exception, devoted a large part of their time to the discussion of this question.

The St. Louis Globe Democrat (and, by the way, the Globe Democrat is not noted as a very strong temperance paper, the history of both its former and present managers proving that they sympathize largely with the whiskey and beer traffic) in the month of April last, contained an editorial nearly a column in length, in which it was asserted that the temperance question was THE religio-politico question of this age, and the editor went on to say that the man who thought this movement was an agitation by a few idle visionaries or old women, was dreaming on the crater of a social volcano. Then, after explaining and giving fully his reasons for such conclusions, the editor said that the Legislature of the State of Missouri would no more dare, at its next session, to refuse to submit the question of the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors to the voters of that State, than it would dare commit any other kind of political suicide.*

In my State, the frontier State of Nebraska, ten years ago, a member of the Legislature who did not drink liquor was an exception ; to-day a member who does is an exception. To-day a man could not be elected in Nebraska, on any party ticket, if it was known he was a tippler.

* The amendment to the State Constitution passed the Assembly of Missouri, but was defeated in the Senate, at the session of the Legislature mentioned in this speech. The liquor-dealers went to party politicians, and told them that if they allowed the amendment to pass, the liquor interest would defeat their parties. This was one cause of the formation of the Prohibition party in the States.

The Legislature met last winter, and during the entire session I saw no member under the influence of liquor. I understood there was a member drunk, but his friends said he was suffering with brain fever, and kept him out of sight until he became sober.

Ten years ago, those who called on the ladies in Omaha, who kept open house on New-Year's, found wine on nearly every table ; for the past three years (and I have means of knowing the truth of what I affirm) not a family in Omaha, nor in the city of Lincoln, has placed wine before its guests on that day. Even our German friends have, to a great extent, banished it from their homes in obedience to the demands of better educated public opinion.

As I look over the rapid advance that has been, and is being made in this country, I have no doubt that the temperance question will come up in every spring election, every Town election, every City election, every County election, every State election, and every National election until it is settled ; each year it will come with louder knocks, and each year with more urgent demands. Politicians and party leaders will be taught that they cannot trifle with this question, that home interests and moral principles are dearer to honest men than party fealty or party success. This truth leads to another one, viz. :

"A question is never settled until it is settled right. "

Put the two together: it must be settled, it must be settled right, and we can proceed to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

My friends, whether you believe in the use of alcoholic liquor or not, the issues in this case must be investigated, and you must make up your minds to meet them and settle them like thinking men and women. Compromise, upon a question of principle, is always a victory for the devil. If you know you are right ; if your conscience, your reason tells you so, and then for the sake of temporary peace, you make concessions to the side that you know to be wrong, you will find sooner or later that you have involved yourself in greater trouble, and probably in a worse fight, one that will not be settled until you retrace the wrong steps which you have taken. Tell one lie and you will find it necessary to tell others to prevent detection of the first. The history of the world is simply recorded demonstrations of these truths.

After the American Colonies were settled, the Parliament of Great Britain insisted that the right was vested in the King, by and with the consent of Parliament, to levy taxes upon the people of the Colonies : the Colonists at once demurred, and insisted that if Parliament, or the King, by and with consent of Parliament, had the right to levy taxes, then the Colonies must be represented in the Parliament which gave the consent. The Parliament of Great Britain levied heavy taxes on the Colonies. The result was inevitable. Parliament was seeking to establish what the majority of the Colonies believed to be a false principle of government. To resist such tyrannical action, Clubs of Liberty were organized throughout the Colonies. The English Premier saw the storm his action had raised, and wished, if possible, to allay it ; the result was the repeal of all the heavy taxes and the concession that the taxes levied should only be upon commerce, and should be applied to the use of the Colony where they were levied. By this act, Parliament conceded everything but the principle — a small tax levied by Parliament to be applied to the use of the Colony where the tax was laid. But the agitation did not cease.

A leading American was asked in Boston, "Would you plunge the Colonies in war for a few pence on a pound of tea ? " The answer was, " It is not the amount of the tax, but the accursed principle upon which Parliament bases the claim of right to levy ANY tax, that we are fighting/' It was fought out on that line, and King George lost one of the brightest jewels in his crown.

This principle has also been demonstrated at a much later date. The representatives of the United States, assembled for the first time as a Congress of an independent nation, declared : " We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson, in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, emphasized the words " All men," by this charge : " He (the King) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative, for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people with the crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

Slavery existed in the Colonies. The representatives, fearing the people, would not ratify the Declaration, the clause which Jefferson had written was stricken out, and the general term, " All men," was left undefined and unernphasized. The long years of mental and physical struggle for freedom during the Revolutionary War extended the mental horizon of American statesmen, and they began to perceive that " All men " might possibly include Africans, and thus the question which statesmen thought they had settled by the compromise made at the time of adopting the Declaration, forced itself into the convention which met to amend the defective Articles of Confederation. There the wrong of slavery was not denied, but the feelings of the delegates were expressed by one who said : " We have a wolf by the ears, and we dare not hold on or let go ! " To do right seemed to endanger a national form of government, and another compromise followed. The word slavery was so obnoxious to men emerging from a long and bloody war for their own liberties that they would not allow it to appear in the Constitution of the United States. They allowed it to exist in the States as a thing to be passed by rather than noticed, aitd, although slavery has gone from the land it has never been necessary to change a word in the original Constitution. "Regulate and restrain " was the policy adopted.

Madison, speaking of this compromise half apologetically, said : " It were doubtless to be wished that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1 808, or rather, that it had been suffered to have immediate operation, but it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general Government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is exoressed. It ought to be considered a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever within these States a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy ; that within that period it will receive a considerable discouragement from the general Government, and may be totally abolished by the concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic."

The delegates labored under the delusion that their action had placed the question where it would settle itself ; but soon prostituted principle woke from the slumber of exhaustion to hear the ringing words of> John Randolph, like a fire-bell in the night :

u I know there are gentlemen, not only from the Northern but from the Southern States, who think this unhappy question — for such it is — of Negro slavery, which the Constitution has vainly tried to blink by not using the term, should never be brought to public notice, more especially that of Congress, and most especially here. Sir, with every due respect to the gentlemen who think so, I differ from them toto ccelo. Sir, it is a thing which cannot be hid ; it is not a dry-rot which you can cover with a carpet until the house tumbles about your ears ; you might as well try to hide a volcano in full operation ; it cannot be hid ; it is a cancer in your face, and must be treated secundum artem ; it must not be tampered with by quacks who never saw the disease or the patient."

Brave, prophetic words. The volcano of an awakening public conscience could not, indeed, be suppressed. Compromise followed compromise, the old ulcer on the body politic grew deeper, the moral pulse of the nation grew feebler, but God was not asleep ; the cry of the bondman had reached His ear, the stench of human blood had offended His nostril. To-day, along the mountains, plains, and valleys of the sunny Southland, the cold sod is heavy over the forms of the grandest, bravest men of the nation, men who wore the blue, men who wore the gray, whose blood was poured out as a libation upon the nation's altar to atone for an accursed compromise, which might, at one time, have been stricken out with a pen. In the reddest of American blood it is written : " A QUESTION IS NEVER SETTLED UNTIL IT IS SETTLED RIGHT."

With this truth, taught by experience, as a starting-point we are ready to continue the investigation. This is not a personal matter between the drunkard-maker and the temperance advocate. Whether the drunkard-maker is a scoundrel or a gentleman weighs not an atom in settling the merits of the case. For the purposes of this investigation, it matters not whether he is a devil or an angel of light. If he is an angel he cannot make a devilish principle a good one ; if he is a devil he cannot make a God-given principle a bad one.

The question to be considered is, the cause of, and remedy for, the evils of intemperance. If the whole brood of drunkard-makers could be drowned in Lake Michigan to-morrow, another brood would spring up in three months, equally as bad as the one destroyed, unless we could destroy the accursed system that produced them ; sear the neck of the license hydra, with public opinion in the hands of prohibition Iolaus.

Some cry, " Attack the liquor-seller ! ,: When asked why, they answer, " He is a mean man." What if he is ? The meaner and viler the drunkard-maker, the better he represents his mean, vile business ; and I prefer a man should be a good representative of his trade. The American people must enter upon the investigation of this question, determined to examine fully all of its phases, to weigh carefully the arguments advanced by both sides, investigate the alleged facts produced by advocates who represent the home and the grog-shop, and then, on the weight of evidence presented, base their verdict. Anything less would not be reasonable, anything else would not be honest. In trying such issues, blackguardism, sneers, and reckless statements are out of place. I have been often impressed, when listening to those who represent the drunkard-makers, that a blackguard is as much out of place in the field of honest, manly discussion as a monkey would be in the tabernacle of the Lord. A man engaged in either intellectual or physical combat should never throw mud when he has rocks at hand, and when individuals stoop to use the mud of epithets in a discussion of this kind, it is prima facie evidence that they have nothing else to use. The copious use of epithets like " Fanatic/' " Zealot," " Fool," and " Visionary," is not argument, but rather an indication of a cerebral vacuum in the head of the talker. When you see a man standing on the street corner, sticking his thumb in his vest-pocket and calling temperance people vile names, just remember it does not require a high order of brains to abuse people. A parrot can blackguard. " If you have no case, abuse the opposing attorney," is the motto of pettifoggers the world over.

Temperance advocates have no use for the style of argument used by tfre drunkard-makers and their apologists. Temperance men believe they are advocating correct principles, and that the facts and arguments upon which they base their claims are so nearly self-evident, that a presentation in a fair, candid way will convince thinking, intelligent people that prohibition is the only remedy for the drink curse. They believe the people are intelligent, and fully capable of passing judgment upon any question of governmental policy ; that the people are the court of last resort, and that all questions must be determined by them. In accordance with this idea they go to the people as to a jury, presenting an indictment against the drink traffic, and ask that the traffic be tried, and a verdict rendered in accordance with the evidence. The object and purpose of the work they have never concealed. From the day the temperance reform started in this country, the prohibitionists have declared from platform and pulpit their purpose, and that purpose is to bury the liquor traffic in the way the old Welsh woman said she would bury the devil : " With face down, so that should he ever come to life, the more he digs the deeper he will get."

•Ladies and gentlemen, such is the purpose of the temperance men of this country — a calm, deliberate, dispassionate purpose — formed after a full investigation of all the facts in the case. You say at once, " This involves social changes, legal changes, changes in the very structure of this government." I answer, " Yes." You ask, " On what charges do you base the demands for this change ? " Let me write the answer ; dip my finger in the blood of some man killed by beer or whiskey, and write it on this wall :

1st. From the day the liquor traffic was allowed to come into this country from the despotisms of Europe, it has existed as a bitter, blighting, damning curse on everything decent, virtuous, and pure. Its history proves it the enemy of law, order, morality, Christianity, and civilization.

2d. The American dram-shop is the cause of more than six-sevenths of the pauperism and four-fifths of the crime in the nation. It is the hot-bed where outlaws germinate ; the cradle where vice is rocked.

3d. Liquor-drinking makes the slums of great cities, and is responsible for the horrible condition of mankind in the slums.

The temperance leaders stand before the people of the world, present the indictment, and say to the liquor interest : " Come into the court of the people and plead." It does not matter whether the temperance advocate is a scoundrel or a gentleman, Mr. Beerseller. The only question the liquor interest of this country must meet is the question raised by this indictment. If the charges are false, the temperance men are liars, slanderers, maligners, and the people should put them on a rail, ride them out of the towns, and dump them into the lake. If the charges are true, no man can justify the license of a damnable traffic guilty of such social crime. It is simply a question of fact. Do the temperance men lie, or do they tell the truth ? They have always proclaimed and pressed the charges. They have stood upon the public platforms and said to the keepers of the dram-shops : " Dare you come before the people and deny these charges ? " How do the liquor-dealers meet the charges ?

Supposing a young man living in Lake Bluff should steal a horse, and start to go to Wisconsin. He is arrested this side of the Wisconsin line, brought back and put in the county jail. The grand jury meet and find an indictment charging him with felony. The young man is brought into court to make his plea. The people prefer he should be acquitted. I believe it is a fact that the American people always sympathize with the criminal ; in other words, they prefer that the man should be innocent, rather than that he should be guilty. You see a man led into a court-room, charged with the crime of murder, and the people hope that the charge is not true. The boy is brought in, the clerk reads the indictment, and asks the simple question : " Are you guilty or not guilty ? " It is a question of fact between him and the people ; he is expected to do one of two things, either plead guilty and accept the punishment of outraged law, or not guilty, thereby challenging the allegations of the people, and forcing their attorney to produce the proof.

The indictment is read, he is asked for his plea, " Guilty or not guilty ?" but instead of making it he draws back, begins to whimper, and says : " If I had not stolen the horse some other man would ! "

The court would say : " That has nothing to do with the question ; it is a question involving your character, reputation, and liberty, a simple question of fact; are you guilty or not guilty ?"

The prisoner continues to whimper, and says: " People have always stolen horses, and they will always steal horses, and it is not fair to pitch into me."

No court would accept such a plea. I can imagine the indignation of the court when for the third time he is asked : " Are you guilty or not guilty ? "

The prisoner, drawing back among a crowd of roughs, answers, " And if I am guilty, what are you going to do about it? All prohibitory laws for the suppression of stealing have failed. Persons steal in every section of this land. You cannot stop it. Prohibition is a failure. Let me tell you what I will do. If you will let me go and continue stealing, I will give you half the money I received for the horse."

If the judge, in face of such a threat, should accept the bribe and release the prisoner, how quickly the people would move to impeach such a judge and depose him for corrupt practices.

The temperance leaders draw the indictment on which the. liquor business is brought into the court of the people. They insist and demand that the traffic shall plead ; not sneak into its dens of infamy, not crouch with the bludgeon in the hands of drunken assassins, not bulldoze and intimidate law-abiding citizens ; but, like any other criminal, come and plead to the indictment before the people. Bring the traffic, in the person of its representatives, into court. Read the indictment. Mr. Liquor-dealer, what is your plea ? The liquor-dealer commences to whimper, and says : " These temperance people are all hypocrites." " Come, now, brace up and be a man : true or false ? " He says, " If I don't sell, some other fellows will." "What has the question of another individual's guilt to do with the question of the guilt of the whole traffic? The question is simply, Is your business guilty ? That is all. If it is not guilty, the business will go on all the stronger; if it is guilty, it must die. Guilty or not guilty?"

"The people have always drank; they always will drink, and it is not fair to pitch into me."

" Guilty or not guilty, Mr. Liquor-seller ? That is all." He draws back, and says :

"Well, if I am, what are you going to do about it? If you say I shall not sell, I will sell in defiance of law. You never have stopped the sale, and never can stop it. When you say I shall not do it, I will hoist the flag of rebellion on the head of a beer-keg, and defy you to stop me. Let me tell you what I will do : If you will permit me to sell, despite the social results of my traffic, I will give you $500 out of the money I get out of the business."

And the people of Chicago and the people of this country reach out their hands and say :

" Pass over a part of the crime-tainted proceeds ; divide the blood-money with us, and we will license you and swear you are respectable."

See again how the liquor-dealers meet the charges. They dare not meet them like honest men.

In Kansas I had the pleasure of visiting the State to help in the struggle for prohibition. I went down into the Democratic part of the State. Strange as it may seem to some of you, my political opinions lead me to support that party. I did not stand on a platform during the campaign that I did not ask the liquor men to come to the platform and discuss the question. I said : " If temperance men are wrong, get your ablest men and bring them here upon the platform, prove us in the wrong, and you have beaten us." Did they come ? Never.

I was one day returning to my home in Lincoln, from Atchison, Kansas, when a gentleman from Chicago, by the name of Hass, came and sat down beside me. After shaking hands, he said :