Chapter VII: A Triumvirate Against Prohibition

How many Americans know that on August 6, 1833, Abraham Lincoln, with two other men, took out a license to sell liquor? Through the kindness of my friend, William L. Fish, I am permitted to reproduce it (see page 84).

Times were different then, it is true; but one has the feeling that Abraham Lincoln was not a Prohibitionist. He was temperate in all things.

In his amazingly interesting book, “Talks with T. R.,” Mr. John J. Leary, Jr., includes a chapter wherein Theodore Roosevelt speaks in no uncertain manner about the prospect of the country going dry.

“Colonel Roosevelt was not of those who favored the Eighteenth
Amendment,” Mr. Leary points out. “To his mind Prohibition was
certain to cause unrest and dissatisfaction; he doubted the
fairness of removing the saloon without providing something to take
its place in the life of the tenement-dwellers; and he was inclined
to think the liquor question was settling itself.

“‘You and I can recall the time,’ he said to me one day, ‘when
it was not bad form for substantial men of affairs, for lawyers,
doctors--professional men generally--to drink in the middle of the
day. It is good form no longer, and it’s not now done. It is not
so long ago that practically every man in politics drank more or
less, when hard drinking, if not the rule, was not the exception.
Now the hard drinker, if he exists at all among the higher grade,
is a survival of what you might call another day.

“‘Take Tammany. No one holds that up as an organization of model
men, yet I am sure that were you to make a canvass of its district
leaders, you would find pretty close to a majority if not an
actual majority are teetotallers. Tammany no longer sends men
with ability, and a weakness for liquor, to Albany. It may and it
probably will send another of Tom Grady’s ability, but it will not
send one who drinks as hard.

“‘This, you may rest assured, is not a matter of morals. It is,
however, a matter of efficiency. Tammany wants results and it is
sufficiently abreast of the times to know that drink and efficiency
do not go hand in hand in these days of card indexes and adding
machines.

“‘It is the same in your profession. Not long ago most of the
boys were fairly competent drinking men; some I knew were rated
as extra competent by admiring, perhaps envious, colleagues. Now
the drinking man, at least the man who drinks enough to show the
effects, is rare. The reason: your editors won’t stand for it. As
Jack Slaght put it the other day--I think it was Jack--a reporter
in the old days was expected to have “a birthday” about so often
and nothing was thought of it. Now, as Slaght puts it, he is
allowed but two. The first time, still quoting your friend Slaght,
who at times is inclined to use plain language, he gets hell; the
next time he gets fired. That is so, is it not?’

“I assured him that Slaght was substantially correct.

“‘It’s not a matter of morals there, though’ (with a laugh). ‘I
will admit you boys do not lack morals. As with Tammany, it is a
question of getting results, exactly as it is with the doctor, the
lawyer, and the judge.

“‘Drinking declined once it became an economic question, or at
least as soon as it was recognized as an economic factor. It then
began to be unfashionable--at least to overdrink--and the man who
never drank at all ceased to be unusual in any trade or calling.

“‘I am, however, sorry that they are pressing Prohibition so hard
at this time. It is, I think, all right, desirable, in fact, to
limit or perhaps prohibit the so-called hard liquors, but it is a
mistake, I think, to stop or try to stop the use of beers and the
lighter wines.

“‘If this thing goes through, where does the social side of life
come in? We both know that a “dry” dinner is apt to be a sad sort
of affair. It will make dining a lost art.

“‘Likewise, I do not know how the working-classes will take to the
change. You and I have no need of the saloon. We have other places
to go. But you and I know that the saloon fits into a very definite
place in the life of the tenement-dweller. I do not know what he
will do without it; what substitutes the reformers will think they
can give him for it. I do not believe they have thought of that, or
that they care much.

“‘Frankly, I do not know what will be the outcome. Prohibition,
if it comes, will cause ill-feeling and unrest--it will be a
disturbing factor--but I do not look for anything serious, for
after all is said and done, the fact remains that the American
workman is a law-abiding individual.

“‘When it comes, Prohibition may or may not be permanent. You may,
however, be sure of one thing--it will be extremely difficult to
repeal, once it becomes part of the Constitution.’

“Responsibility for Prohibition Colonel Roosevelt placed squarely
upon the shoulders of the liquor dealers good and bad.

“‘Some liquor dealers I have known,’ said he, ‘were good,
well-meaning citizens, who kept decent places. Take the Oakeses,
father and son, who own the Oyster Bay Inn. I should be very sorry
to see them lose their license. Theirs is a clean, respectable
place. Again, there is John Brosnan’s place in New York. No one
ever heard a complaint against John. His place has been no more
offensive than if he sold dry goods.

“‘I shall take no part in the contest one way or the other. It must
be settled without me. I shall not allow it or anything else to
swerve me from the work we’re now in.’

“The ‘work we’re now in’ was the effort to speed up the war by
arousing the American people to the necessity of winning a ‘peace
with victory.’”

Thus Theodore Roosevelt.

Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act. He saw at once its undemocratic features, its danger to the country.

As to following Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson--do you prefer their leadership, or that of Mr. Volstead and the fanatics?