the cry has gone up from time to time since the passage of the volstead act that the country at large wanted—nay, had demanded, prohibition. the literary digest, hearing and noting these reiterations, decided to investigate the feeling of the land. they would have a referendum of the people through a straw vote; and they would get, in that way, at the truth.
many of us were not at all sure of the sentiment in communities like the far and middle west. we knew that the south, for reasons best known to itself, had favored large arid territories; but the east had remained insistently wet. therefore, it was a big surprise, when the literary digest’s returns began to come in, to discover that in many sections a reverse feeling flourished from that which had been anticipated. it must have proved a shock to the anti-saloon league, in its smug complacency, to learn that many citizens, like a man i met in omaha, declared that he was greatly in favor of prohibition—until we got it.
indeed, many feel just like that. conditions are164 certainly intolerable wherever i have been. drunkenness may have disappeared from the sidewalks, but it has taken to the taxicab; and though the corner saloon has gone (i hope forever) the hip-flask has taken its place, on the south-east corner of many an individual.
so much had been said and written of the feeling of the country, that the digest (the editor-in-chief is a prohibitionist, if i am not mistaken) went right to the heart of the thing, in no uncertain manner. much discussion had taken place as to the temper of the people, and there seemed no way of arriving at the truth.
ten million blanks were sent out, to every kind of voter. the bonus for soldiers and sailors was more or less tied up with prohibition. therefore it was deemed wise to try to get the popular sentiment on both questions at the same time.
the questionnaire, in the form of a ballot, was as follows:
secret ballot on prohibition and soldiers’ bonus no signature—no condition—no obligation mark and mail at once
prohibition: (put a cross (x) in the square only opposite the policy you favor)
a. do you favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and volstead law?
b. do you favor a modification of the volstead law to permit light wines and beers?
c. do you favor a repeal of the prohibition amendment?
mark (x) in one
square only
soldiers’ bonus: (put a cross (x) in the square)
yes no
do you favor a federal bonus for all american soldiers and sailors who wore the uniform during the world war?
it is important to mark and return this ballot immediately.
every precaution was taken to obviate dishonesty;165 but i suppose as there never was an election without trouble at the polls—it would be expecting too much of human beings to believe otherwise—so in this solicitation there may have been a few duplicate votes to swell the general average, one way or the other. yet the digest had confidence in the returns; and through their canvass of the various states we have come to see that there are not only “wets” and “drys,” but a third enormous party of what we might call “moists.” by this term is meant the people who wish a modification of the volstead act, permitting the sale of light wines and beer. indeed, this party predominated in the final returns.
166 the anti-saloon league has scorned the digest’s figures; yet one has a feeling that if the showing had been in favor of a strict observance and upholding of the present prohibition law, a different attitude might have been observed on its part. it is but human, after all, to wish the tide to turn in the direction one has spiritedly advocated. even the “moists” must have been surprised at their own brilliant showing.
it was in july, 1922, that the first reports were made; and the digest was amazed when the ballots of the first hundred thousand poured in.
those in favor of a strict enforcement numbered 32,445.
those in favor of a modification numbered 39,665.
those in favor of a repeal of the prohibition amendment numbered 22,547.
as to the soldiers’ bonus, the vote was almost even. yes, 46,609. no, 47,469.
“dampness seems to predominate,” the digest said. “the most startling fact revealed by this first tally is that the early voters are against the continuance and enforcement of the present prohibition law by the proportion of nearly two to one. on the other hand, the voters show themselves in favor of the prohibition amendment, or, in other words, in favor of some sort of a prohibition law, by the even larger ratio of 72,000 to 22,500.”
the editors were exceedingly fair in their appraisement167 of conditions. they stated that “in kansas, the votes run 111 for strict enforcement, 34 for modification and 14 for repeal of the amendment. thus the prohibitionists, it is seen, outnumber the combined ‘moists’ and ‘wets’ by almost three to one, a situation that is duplicated in no other state. since this early vote was tabulated, a large number of returns have come in for kansas and, even though we may be anticipating next week’s report of votes, it may be mentioned that this large vote is a striking verification of the conditions indicated by the small vote shown here. kansas is for prohibition, by approximately three to one. it is a significant fact, also, that this state has tried a dry régime for a number of years, and knows better than most others how it works.”
but here again no thinking man, it seems to me, has a right to find fault with a state which wishes earnestly to go dry. local option is sensible and reasonable; a certain territory could fence itself in, as it were, guarding itself from a menace, making all the strict laws it desired to protect its people from what it considered a tremendous evil. but it has no right to inflict its statutes upon its friendly neighbors, any more than the united states has a right to restrict drinking on the ocean, forbidding foreign vessels to enter our ports with cargoes of sealed spirits.
it is interesting to note how the various states voted in this preliminary canvass.
168
detailed tabulation of the first returns on prohibition
new england states for
enforcement for
modification for
repeal
1—maine 24 17 17
2—n. h. 16 13 3
3—vt. 16 6 6
4—mass. 4,242 4,862 2,805
5—r. i. 7 14 17
6—conn. 34 39 20
total votes 4,339 4,951 2,868
middle atlantic states
1—n. y. 6,169 9,315 4,966
2—n. j. 29 45 27
3—penn. 8,307 9,139 6,573
total votes 14,505 18,499 11,566
east north central states
1—ohio 829 716 250
2—ind. 152 73 33
3—ill. 9,312 12,012 6,621
4—mich. 125 84 36
5—wisc. 75 69 22
total votes 10,493 12,954 6,962
west north central states
1—minn. 89 82 17
2—iowa 113 88 23
3—mo. 100 67 33
4—n. dak. 16 17 1
5—s. dak. 21 9 2
6—nebr. 72 44 19
7—kans. 111 34 14
total votes 522 341 109
south atlantic states
1—del. 6 4 3
2—md. 15 27 36
3—d. c. 14 27 8
4—va. 28 27 9
5—w. va. 18 20 4169
6—n. car. 32 14 7
7—s. car. 10 11 4
8—ga. 24 27 12
9—fla. 11 4 8
total votes 158 161 91
east south central states
1—ky. 27 25 28
2—tenn. 42 17 10
3—ala. 23 19 5
4—miss. 13 11 5
total votes 105 72 48
west south central states
1—ark. 15 12 1
2—la. 12 13 3
3—okla. 43 29 7
4—texas 116 62 21
total votes 186 116 32
mountain states
1—mont. 11 16 8
2—idaho 9 13 5
3—wyo. 2 5 —
4—colo. 31 30 11
5—n. mex. 5 5 1
6—ariz. 8 3 —
7—utah 8 16 6
8—nev. 1 1 1
total votes 75 89 32
pacific states
1—wash. 830 951 247
2—oreg. 28 22 6
3—calif. 1,204 1,509 585
total votes 2,062 2,482 839
grand total 32,445 39,665 22,547
170 after the first and second polls had been taken by the digest,—that is, after 200,000 votes had been classified,—the editors asked for an expression of opinion from william h. anderson, state superintendent of the anti-saloon league of new york and president of the allied citizens of america. he admitted the honesty, good faith and fairness of the canvass, but deemed it “unwise.” and he went on to say:
“there is a clear and fundamental distinction between taking a poll on a question which is yet to be decided and taking a poll on a question which has been decided. in the latter case the issue inevitably presented to many minds is whether the law which represents the decision shall be enforced.”
there are millions of citizens who look upon the eighteenth amendment as cause for a grievance; and the first amendment states very clearly “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
surely it is no breach of the peace to ask for an expression from voters concerning a matter so serious as prohibition, on which they never voted. how else could a clear comprehension be gained of the wishes of the people, save through the press in a country so vast as ours? naturally, there would be resentment in the dry camp at any attempt to repeal the eighteenth amendment; but i hope there are no171 americans who would honestly favor a supine obedience to a law which is abhorrent to such a number of us. intolerance is not a worthy sentiment. it is a healthy sign when people disagree. the clash of minds leads to larger prospects of final understanding; and if it is found in the end that prohibition is ardently wanted by the majority, we shall continue to have prohibition, with, i trust, a perfect carrying out of the law. the digest’s desire to learn the truth is an admirable one. the advocates of mr. volstead have nothing to fear from it. if they are right, and people like myself are wrong, then right will prevail. meanwhile, nothing is gained by cantankerously bidding us behave ourselves, and bow to the inevitable. this is but an added form of prohibition which only serves to stir up enmities, to create further discords, and muddle matters even more. your honest opinion and mine are quite as valuable to the country as that of mr. volstead and mr. anderson.
and so the literary digest evidently thought. for it continued to publish returns as they came flooding into the editorial office. innumerable letters accompanied the votes. people from all sections of the country “spoke out in meeting,” advocating government control of the liquor traffic. from omaha and new jersey this advice came, and from practically every state of the union. the people were being heard from.
the second hundred-thousand voted as follows:
172
for strict enforcement 76,597
for modification 85,151
for repeal 45,646
a poll was taken in many factories where both men and women are employed. in the edison works in new jersey, the poll was taken under the supervision of charles a. edison, “who saw to it that the ballots were distributed one to each worker. they were marked secretly, and deposited by the individual workers in sealed ballot boxes, later opened by representatives of the digest. the result shows a proportion of slightly more than twenty to one against the continuation and enforcement of the present liquor laws.” this is the vote:
for enforcement 93
for modification 976
for repeal 966
a careful poll of the establishment of parke, davis & company, manufacturing chemists, of detroit, revealed the following results:
for enforcement 218
for modification 1,081
for repeal 211
combining these two polls, the attitude of the workers in two representative factories would be summarized as follows:
173
for enforcement 311
for modification 2,059
for repeal 1,177
in connection with factories and labor, one inevitably thinks of samuel gompers. the digest asked him for an expression of opinion, wishing to get all sides of all subjects, and he sent this strong statement:
“in addition to the vile and poisonous substitution for whiskey so largely consumed, and in addition to the increased drug habit since prohibition, prohibition has made a nation of grouches. it has taken the joy out of the american people, as can be attested by almost every social gathering. the whole scheme is unwarrantable interference with the personal freedom of the people, and increases discontent and resentment in the knowledge that those who have it, have it. i firmly believe that a modification of the volstead act so that beer and light wines may be manufactured and sold under proper regulations would solve the whole question rationally and helpfully.”
the discontent of the worker is something to be considered—even by fanatics who would rule us by force, and seek to restrain too thoroughly man’s natural appetites. one must take into account the wishes of that vast army who do the drudgery of the world; and it does not require an immense amount174 of imagination to understand what the years may bring. if there is an apparent stolid indifference now in the realms of labor, the digest’s poll would seem to contradict any such belief. that the workingman is beginning to realize that a distinct form of class legislation has taken place there can be no doubt. i think the authorities would never dare to encroach upon a laborer’s rights in the matter of home brew. yet they must be aware that, deprived of his only club, the corner saloon, the workingman who still desires a glass of beer occasionally is methodically producing it. against the law? to the devil with the law, says the hard-working day laborer, when the rich disobey it every hour of their lives.
another factory, which employs women, was also canvassed. this was the establishment of the campbell’s soup company in new jersey. approximately 30 per cent of the workers polled were women; yet the vote is against the present laws by a proportion of 9 to 1. this is how the voting ran:
for enforcement 162
for modification 720
for repeal 750
but the final figures are the most interesting of all. a summary of 922,383 ballots revealed this result, which must have proved disheartening to the anti-saloon league:
175
summary of 922,383 ballots on prohibition
for enforcement for modification for repeal
main poll 306,255—(38.5%) 325,549—(41.1%) 164,453—(20.4%)
women’s poll 48,485—(44.5%) 39,914—(36.7%) 20,448—(18.8%)
factory polls 1,453—( 8.4%) 10,871—(62.1%) 4,955—(29.5%)
totals 356,193—(38.6%) 376,334—(40.8%) 189,856—(20.6%)
is it necessary for anyone to say anything further about the temper of the country? facts are facts.
to repeat what my friend in omaha said:
“prohibition was all right—until we got it!”
