During the years following, temperance sentiment continued to grow, and agitation went on. There were "liquor spillings" here and there, and various other forms of dissatisfaction were manifested. In 1860 an act was passed by the Territorial Legislature prohibiting the sale, exchange, gift or barter of spiritous liquors or wine to any Indian within the Territory, unless directed by a physician for medical purposes. A heavy penalty was attached to any violation of this law. By this time the Indians had become so adept at evasions and excuses to obtain whiskey, that there was great need of this enactment, and it was but a matter of protection for them.

On October 9, 1861, occurred the first annual meeting of the Kansas State Temperance Society, and the following resolutions were unanimously passed:

The personnel of this convention is interesting, names appearing that had been known to the territory from the beginning. These men were those who had helped in the Free-State movement, who had been members of the Territorial assemblies, and who had been prominent in various other ways. Dr. Amory Hunting was senior vice-president, H. M. Greene was secretary pro tem. Among the new officers elected that year were J. P. Root, H. A. Seaver, Abraham Ellis, who afterwards was known as "Bullet-hole Ellis" on account of a bullet-hole in his forehead which he received at the hands of Quantrill on March 7, 1862. Benoni Wheat, W. W. Updegraff, J. C. Douglas, F. W. Giles, J. C. Burnett, a member of the Wyandotte Constitutional Convention, and Dr. Peter McVicar, all representative citizens and coming from then widely scattered communities.

It was during the Civil War that a precedent for Carrie Nation and her hatchet was established by the women of Mound City. It had been an unwritten law that no saloons should exist in the town. But an enterprising individual, seeing what he thought a good opening on account of a command of soldiers stationed nearby, came into the village and started a bar-room. It of course became an intolerable nuisance to the citizens. Drunken soldiers were a common sight. Practically all of the able-bodied men were in the army, so the women undertook to cope with the situation. One morning a wagon load of women from the direction of Moneka, a village a mile and a half northwest of Mound City, drove into town. They were supplied with hatchets and axes, and were soon joined by a squad of their Mound City sisters. The company marched straight to the open door of the saloon and filed in. Some one made a move to intervene, but was promptly stopped by a revolver in the hands of a bystander, who told him he would shoot if he attempted to interfere with the women. The women drove out the bar-keepers and the loungers, and then deliberately broke every bottle, glass and decanter in sight, and knocked in the heads of every barrel and keg. Having completed their work they filed out and went to their homes, and a saloon was no more in Mound City, for the result was a prohibition that prohibited for many years without assistance of law or courts.

By 1866, so strongly were people becoming imbued with temperance principles that a measurable prohibition of the liquor traffic was being enforced in many of the counties of the state and in several of the cities of the third class. This year saw the enactment of a special law for the benefit of the public schools of the town of Humboldt in Allen County. The money derived from the granting of a dram-shop license was to be turned to the use of the schools in that village. A vicarious good to grow from ill-gotten gains. This plan was also followed in some other localities.

The winter of 1866-1867 found distinguished speakers from abroad working in the temperance cause in Kansas. One of them, Dr. Charles Jewett, of Connecticut, lectured in Topeka during the session of the Legislature. All this was inclined to stimulate legislative activity along the line of temperance, and that winter, 1867, the dram-shop act of 1859 was amended. The change in section one of the law was a distinct advance, providing as it did, that the petition or recommendation presented to the county tribunal for a township license must be signed by a majority of both male and female residents of the township, of twenty-one years of age and over. If the petition was for a town or city it must contain the signatures of a majority of the residents of the ward of twenty-one years of age or over, both male and female, before its presentation to the city council. Section two was amended in the amount of tax levied, "not less than $50 nor more than $500 for every period of twelve months." Section fifteen was repealed. This section exempted all corporate cities of 1,000 or more inhabitants from the operations of the act and gave them the power to regulate licenses and dispose of the proceeds derived therefrom.

There was likewise passed at this session of the Legislature an act prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in the unorganized counties of the state. The penalty for violation of this law was a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or confinement in jail for a term of not less than four nor more than twelve months.

By legislative act approved Feb. 18, 1867, the appointment of a commission was authorized to revise and codify the laws. Their report was adopted by the Legislature of 1868. And on March 3, 1868, "An Act to restrain dramshops and taverns and to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors" was approved. The basis for this law was the law of 1859 amended in 1867, and as will be seen, it differed very little from the law of 1859.

Until 1870 the temperance movement in Kansas had no real cohesion, but from that date to the time of the vote on the prohibitory amendment a continued and united effort was made to bring about a satisfactory change in the dramshop law. By 1870 temperance was a topic of nationwide discussion. The church, always a vital power in the temperance movement, was holding revivals throughout the country. The Murphy or Blue Ribbon Workers were increasing in numbers. And all this was leading up to the "Woman's Crusade" inaugurated at Hillsboro, Ohio, in 1873, when after a temperance revival the women of the town undertook by a crusade of prayer to drive the saloons from their city.

Prior to this time, probably the most potent factor in the temperance movement in Kansas had been the Independent Order of Good Templars, a national temperance society, organized at Utica, N. Y., in 1851, and an outgrowth of the Sons of Temperance which had been organized some ten years previous. Article two of its constitution was the pledge that "No member shall make, buy, sell or use, as a beverage, any spiritous or malt liquors, wine or cider, and shall discountenance the manufacture and sale thereof, in all proper ways." In 1858 Tecumseh had a flourishing lodge of Good Templars. Lawrence, too, was an early stronghold. On September 26, 1860, a Grand Lodge was organized at Leavenworth by delegates from ten subordinate lodges over the territory. At one time and another previous to the organization of the Grand Lodge there had been thirty-four subordinate lodges in Kansas.

The Grand Lodge proceedings of 1866 speak of an awakened interest in temperance throughout the land. In New York a National Temperance Society had been organized issuing publications and sending out lecturers. And some discussion was evoked as to the propriety of making the Kansas Grand Lodge an auxiliary society to the National Temperance association that they might gain thereby the advantage of the "powerful advocacy of its press and the influence flowing from its publishing house." For some years the Good Templars in Kansas had deprecated the lack of temperance literature and were therefore anxious to seize opportunities that offered the publicity of the press, and gave them a channel for their propaganda.

In 1871 a member of the Good Templars brought to the Grand Lodge the suggestion that some action be taken to secure an amendment to the laws on the suppression of the liquor traffic, "the laws, as they now stand, being practically a dead letter." He asked that petitions be circulated and presented to the Legislature at its next session praying for "a law which shall better suppress the sale of intoxicating drinks." The Good Templars had by this time increased to 173 lodges in the state with a total membership of some 3,000 people, and had, of course, a corresponding influence in public affairs.

The effect of their work developed in the legislative session of 1872 when Dr. James H. Whitford of Garnett introduced, on January 11, House bill No. 7, "An Act to provide against the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating liquors in the State of Kansas." The temperance people were fortunate in securing the ear of a man of Dr. Whitford's type. He understood legislative procedure, having served in the House of Representatives in 1870, and was a man of large and varied experience. He was born in Circleville, Ohio, in 1822, and as a boy helped his father in a wool-carding mill. After reaching manhood he was for a time engaged in the contracting and construction of public works in both Ohio and Virginia. In 1852 he went to California, where he mined gold for two years. Returning to his native state he began the study of medicine in 1856, attending Starling Medical College, and graduated in 1858. He practiced at Royalton, Ohio, until the beginning of the Civil War, and in August, 1861, was appointed assistant surgeon to the 30th Ohio Infantry, and commissioned surgeon in March, 1862, which position he filled until July 29, 1865. After the battle of Antietam he acted as Brigade surgeon, and after Chickamauga as Medical Director of the Fourth Division, Fourteenth Army Corps. For some months he served as Medical Director of the Wheeling district. After the close of the war he practiced at Circleville for a short time, moving to Garnett, Kansas, in 1867, where he continued the practice of his profession.

Unfortunately no copy of House Bill No. 7, nor its substitute, has been preserved. We can only judge it by its title, by newspaper notices, and by the antagonism created against it among the liquor-dealing element in the state. The bill was introduced, as has been noted early in the session, and on account of the opposition dragged a weary length through the House. Dr. Whitford had been made chairman of the special committee on bills relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors. With three others on this subject, House bill No. 7 was referred to his committee. On January 25, it was reported back to the House without amendment and with the recommendation that it pass. Later it was returned to the committee for further consideration and on Feb. 6, they reported a substitute to the House. A minority report was made on Feb. 8, and here follows:

From accounts drawn from several newspapers it appears that Section one of this bill provided that a bond of $3,000 must be given as security before a license could be obtained. Section two provided that it should be unlawful to sell to minors, to intoxicated persons or to those in the habit of getting intoxicated. Section four provided that every person who should by the sale of intoxicating liquor cause intoxication of any other persons should be liable for and should be compelled to pay a reasonable compensation for the care of such intoxicated person. Section five provided for the right of action against the seller of intoxicants in the event of injury in person, property or support. The remaining sections defined fines and penalties for violation of the law and, were not included in the account. On February 13th the bill came up for final consideration and passed the House by a vote of 57 yeas to 34 nays. On the 14th it was messaged to the Senate and there was referred to a special committee who eventually reported it back to the Senate with some amendments. It was re-committed for further consideration, and later, the Senate, in Committee of the Whole, moved that the special committee be instructed to report as soon as the bill was printed. But since this motion was had only four days prior to the adjournment of the Legislature, and since no action was taken on it, it is but natural to believe that the bill died in the hands of the committee.

The petitions submitted to the Legislature asking for favorable action on this bill were surprisingly numerous and proved the activity of the Independent Order of Good Templars. Nearly fifty petitions were presented to the House and some fifteen to the Senate. A conservative estimate of the number of signatures would place it at 6,000 names. Seven remonstrances against any change in the laws governing the liquor traffic were submitted, aggregating some 3,000 signatures.

The newspapers took an active part in this campaign, those of Leavenworth and Atchison were naturally strongly opposed to any change in the liquor laws. The Leavenworth Times of January 28th had this to say:

The Atchison Weekly Champion of February 3rd had a long article on "The Liquor Law," from which the following is quoted:

Then follows an argument on the impossibility of a law, unsustained by public sentiment, becoming effective. The same argument that has been used since time immemorial against any legislation tending to raise the moral standard of a people. The article closes with this paragraph:

Many open letters were published in the papers both for and against the proposed liquor law, but the policy of the larger newspapers was undoubtedly against so stringent a measure, and inclined strongly to the "let well enough alone" theory.

That the liquor dealers took an active hand in the campaign is shown by the following newspaper extracts:

From the Leavenworth Times we find that the "Anti-Liquor Law Convention came off according to plans, and that its meeting was considered successful. There were present 119 delegates from over the state, resolutions were passed, and the convention adjourned subject to call. The resolutions were to the effect that all restrictions necessary were already imposed by the dramshop act of 1868. They recited that the liquor dealers were among the heaviest tax payers in the state. That they were a most respectable body of business men "desirous of obeying every just law, and the legislation on so personal an affair as what a man should eat and drink was contrary to the constitution of the United States and all liberty." They further stated that experience had proven such stringent laws ineffectual and that the convention should "heartily unite against the movement now on foot to crush our social liberties by fanatics. And that further trust be refused any party that upholds the principles enunciated in the temperance law now before the legislature." Copies of these resolutions were sent to the Speaker of the House and to the President of the Senate to be presented to the Legislature as a protest against, the law.

A resolution looking to a permanent organization of the liquor dealers was also passed.

The activity of the temperance people, and they were exceedingly busy during the legislative session, is shown through the many announcements of temperance meetings and in fact that the State Temperance Union held its annual meeting in Topeka while the Legislature was in session. An urgent invitation was extended to the Legislature to attend the sessions of the Temperance Union.

How this invitation was received is illustrated by an extract from the Leavenworth Times of January 18.

Of a meeting on the evening of February 5th the newspaper says that the temperance men rallied in force at representative hall. "Not only were the cold-water men there but the cold-water girls as well. On a whole it was a temperance victory, and an ice-water ovation. Speeches were made, all for the bill." That the bill was already lost was a foregone conclusion, and probably none knew it better than the "cold water men," but public sentiment was being educated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 & 2
BIOGRAPHIES — VOLUMES 3, 4, & 5
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Y | Z

---

Background and KSGenWeb logo were designed and are copyrighted by Tom & Carolyn Ward for the limited use of the KSGenWeb Project. Permission is granted for use only on an official KSGenWeb page.

---

©1997-2014 by Tom & Carolyn Ward