Those who have read that rare little classic, "Queen of the Woods," written by Simon Pokagon, last chief of the Pottawattomies, will recall the pathetic story of the destruction of his family by "ish-kot-e-wa-be" (fire water) supplied the Indians by the more advanced (?) civilization which drove his people from their forest homes. Chief Pokagon, then in the vigor of his young manhood. had received a classical education, and, strange to say, had escaped the clutches of this curse of his race. His family consisted of his wife, Lonidaw, and two children, Olondaw and Hazeleye.
When the boy, Olondaw, was twelve years old the parents consented to send him away to the white man's school at the expense of a priest, to be educated. The mother gave her consent with great reluctance, after she had exacted a solemn promise from the priest that the boy should be carefully guarded against the Indian's deadly enemy. Pokagon then relates the following:
"The night before Olondaw left Lonidaw dreamed she was near the wigwam of her childhood days, and that in a familiar bush by the trailside she found two young robins in their nest. She touched one gently with her hand. It leaped from out the nest chirping a wild alarm, and fell fluttering to the ground. The parent birds, distracted, came flying all about uttering mourning notes of deepest sorrow. She sought the young bird to place it back into its nest again; but to her astonishment she saw it moving as by measured tread on tiptoe hop, with drooping wings, toward a monstrous 'gin-e-big' (snake) with open mouth, that was drawing the young bird by some unseen charm into the jaws of death. In haste she grasped a club to beat the reptile off, hut as she struck with all her might it seized the bird; when, lo! to her surprise the snake within its jaws held fast, not the bird, but the living skeleton of her son, struggling to escape. The boy in terror cried: 'My mother! Oh, my mother. Save your boy!' Screaming, she awoke and told her dream and said: 'I never have believed in dreams, but this one seems so real I do believe with all my heart it has been sent of heaven as a warning not to send our boy to the school of the white man,'"
After a few years the boy returned to his home, and with his first kiss on his mother's lips disclosed to her that her horrid dream was being fulfilled. Smelling the white man's liquor on his breath she fell writhing at his feet; but despite the most solemn promises that he would never touch it again, he soon became a drunken wreck and passed into an early grave. A short time later, while their daughter, Hazeleye, was out on the small lake near their home, two drunken flshermen, white men, ran into her bark canoe, broke it in two and the girl was drowned. Rendered unconscious by her desperate efforts to save the child the young mother was resuscitated with difficulty, only to die a few weeks later from a broken heart. After giving an account of her burial the broken hearted chief continues:
"I reached my lonely home. No crape was hung upon the latch-string of the door. No friends had gathered there to cheer the mourning heart on its return. * * * Alone in my wigwam with the old, faithful dog at my side, I knelt and poured out may soul in prayer and tears to the Great Spirit. I told him how my dear Lonidaw, whom He gave me, became broken-hearted over the downfall and loss of our dear boy, and how she fell a victim to despair and died because of the sudden death of our dear Hazeleye, leaving me wretched and alone. I told Him not only of my own family and kin, but how my band and tribe were falling before the intoxicating cup like leaves before the autumn blast; and that bad white men, who appeared to love money more than their own souls, had pressed to our lips the alluring beverage of hell, and after having ruined many of our young men and our old men, had most wickedly published to the world that the red man would barter all he possessed for 'ish-kot-e-wa-be.'"
Then followed one of the most scathing arraignments of the drink evil; and as Pokagon was born in 1825, and as a portion of his tribe about this time and for several years later had a populous village on the west side of the Tippecanoe River, just north of the dam at Monticello, it brings his sad story very close home to us. He died at his home near St. Joseph, Michigan, in 1899, while the manuscript for his book was yet in the hands of the printers. Throughout his long life the old chief never faltered in his relentless fight against "the white man's burden," and the curse of his race; but with an eloquence and pathos born of personal wrongs and suffering he continued to warn his people to shun the accursed habit if they would escape the wrath of the Great Spirit and reach the happy hunting grounds of their fathers.
Thus it seems that Indians and rattlesnakes, gophers and green head flies, mosquitoes and malaria were not the only evils the early settler had to combat. With the advent of the white man came the white man's "fire water," with all its attendant evils and misery, and the seemingly never-ending conflict between drunkenness and sobriety, law and lawlessness, unscrupulous greed and the golden rule; and in this conflict neighbor has been pitted against neighbor, husband against wife, brother against brother and son against father; and this warfare against saloons and the liquor evil in White County began very early in the county's history—at least as early as 1837. The Monticello Herald of June 28, 1883, says:
"An old book was found in the vault of the county recorder's office last week which contains the record of the first temperance society in White County.
"The minutes of the first meeting are dated May 21, 1837, and are signed by Joshua Lindsey, president, and Levi S. Dale, secretary. The meeting was held at the courthouse pursuant to previous notice, and was addressed by Rev. Mr. Holladay and Rev. Mr. Hummer, after which a committee consisting of Geo. A. Spencer, Zebulon Sheetz the Rev. Hummer, I. Reynolds, John Wilson, J. Harbolt, James Spencer, George R. Bartley, Dr. K. Brearley and Levi S. Dale was appointed to draft a constitution for the society.
"After a few minutes retirement this voluminous committee reported a no less voluminous constitution, which had evidently been 'cut and dried' beforehand, and it was adopted and signed by persons present. The full number enrolled, as shown by the record, was 135. Of these names we only recognize seven who are still living: D. M. Tilton, Isaac S. Vinson, Asenath Price, Ellis H. Johnson, Van McCulloch and Mary Reynolds. The rest are all numbered with 'the silent majority.'
"The society was known as 'The White County Temperance Society,' and its members were pledged to 'abstain from the use of and traffic in all intoxicating liquors as a drink.' The constitution provided that an executive committee should be elected annually, whose duty it should be 'to procure the delivery of suitable addresses at the regular meetings of the society when practicable and to procure and circulate as far as possible every temperance publication which they might deem of good tendency.'
"An evidence of the slow moving age in which our ancestors lived is the fact that the regular meetings of this primeval organization were held only once in three months—in the words of the constitution, 'on the 4th of July and every quarter thereafter'—a striking contrast to the weekly and nightly meetings of the blue ribbon period.
"On the 4th of July, 1837, at 12 o'clock, the society was addressed by Levi S. Dale, and so favorably was the address received that a committee consisting of Joshua Lindsey and Isaac Parker was appointed to secure a copy of it for publication. The result recorded in the minutes shows that Mr. Dale belonged to a species of the genus homo now extinct. After acknowledging the receipt of the committee's request, he said:
"'1 heartily thank the Society for their good opinion of my humble effort in the cause of humanity, but however flattering it would be to my vanity to see the address published, for the reason that I do not entertain so exalted an opinion of it, and for other reasons, I respectfully decline complying with your request. Your obt. serv't,
"The last meeting of which this old book shows any record was held January 1, 1839, and was addressed by Rev. McLeash. The minutes are signed by T. M. Thompson, secretary. Jonathan Harbolt was president at this time but neglected to sign the minutes.
"This old record is an interesting relic and should be placed in the archives of the Old Settlers' Association."
It is probable that the struggle continued with varying degrees of success, though not much is known of local conditions during the next twenty years. However, the temperance question cut a large figure in the state at large, as well as in several other states of the Union. In 1853 the Indiana Legislature enacted a local option Law, which was repealed by the law of 1855, which was known as the Maine prohibitory law, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. However, liquor was permitted to he sold for medicinal purposes, and as it was considered a sovereign remedy for malaria and a specific for snake bite, it was said that those who were not shaking with the "ager," the common designation for malarial chills, spent much of their time in looking for snakes—or at least in reporting snake bites to their family physician. This was especially true of those who had heretofore been addicted to the use of whisky; and it was indeed surprising how easily a prairie rattler could find one of these old topers.
About this time the temperance tide was again rising high in White County. Lodges of the Sons and Daughters of Temperance, Good Templars and the Temple of Honor were organized, not only in Monticello but also in several of the smaller towns, and meetings of one or the other were held almost nightly. The law of 1853 having been repealed by the law of 1855, and the latter having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1858, this left the liquor business in a very chaotic state, the conditions in different localities depending altogether on public sentiment. The agitation in Monticello had been so strong and the sentiment against the liquor business so pronounced that at the beginning of 1859 there remained only one place, that of Parry & Dale, where liquor could be procured without a physician's certificate. There are now in the hands of the White County Historical Society some old papers which throw further light on conditions at this interesting period. One dated February 15, 1859, says: "At a meeting of the citizens of Monticello and neighborhood, held in the First Presbyterian Church for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of intemperance in the community, on motion of Rev. H. S. Shaw a committee consisting of Shaw, Scott and Hanawalt was appointed to draft and report resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting. This committee reported the following:
"'Resolved, That a committee of three persons be appointed by the meeting to expostulate with the sellers of liquors in Monticello, and the said committee affectionately request them to cease selling until Legislature now in session throws some guards around the traffic. And that the committee receive some satisfactory assurance that they stop now; which shall assure the ladies that they will fulfill their promise.'"
The minutes do not state who was appointed the "committee of three persons," but the committee evidently went at their duties vigorously; for at an adjourned meeting held on the afternoon of February 19th they reported the following:
"A bill of liquors belonging to Parry & Dale to be delivered to Joseph Rothrock, Agent:
One keg containing 4 1/2 gal. common brandy, 1.25 per gal.
One keg containing 3 1/4 gal. good brandy, 4.00 per. gal.
One keg containing 2 gal. Holland Gin, 2.00 per gal.
One keg containing 7 gal. more or less, cherry bounce, 1.50 per gal.
One half bbl. containing 13 gal. Rye whisky, .75 per gaL
"Measured by Parry, Van Buskirk and Bushnell this 18th day of February, 1859. The kegs containing the liquors estimated to be worth 5 dollars, $48.87.
"Know all men by these presents that we, J. Rothrock, M. A. Berkey, A. Hanawalt, F. H. Kiefhaber, H. B. Logan and T. M. Thompson, of the County of White, in the State of Indiana, are held and firmly bound unto Messrs. Dale and Parry of Monticello in the sum of forty-eight 87/100 dollars, to the payment whereof we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these presents. Signed and dated this 18th day of Feb., 1859.
"The consideration of the above obligation is such that if Joseph Rothrock shall take the liquors of which the above is a bill, and sell them, or return them to the said Parry and Dale; and if sold that he will pay the proceeds arising from the said sale to the said Parry and Dale, then this obligation is to be void; else to remain in full force."
The action of the committee was received as a happy solution of the liquor evil in Monticello and the committee was given a vote of thanks. On motion a vote of thanks was also extended to the liquor dealers "for the gentlemanly manner in which they complied with the requisitions of the committee, and that they be entitled to fair patronage in their legitimate business."
It will be remembered that in those days liquors were usually sold in connection with other lines of merchandise, and this resolution was to prevent what in later years has become known as the boycott. A vote of thanks was also extended to the ladies "for their energy and fidelity." Mr. Rothrock accepted the trust; the liquors were turned over to him and the committee discharged. No further record has been discovered as to the disposition of the liquors, but tradition states that the amount necessary to pay for them was subscribed by the temperance people and the liquors were emptied into the gutter.
Of course the temperance people and those favoring law and order were much elated over finally ridding the town of the last and only place where liquor was sold as a beverage; but their joy was of short duration. Subsequent events are graphically told by Mr. M. M. Sill, one of the participants, in his uncompleted history of White County. Mr. Sill says:
"In about one month a stranger, hailing from Logansport, made his appearance and announced his intention of starting a cigar and tobacco store, provided be could find a suitable room in the town. Of course he could be accommodated. There was not a place in the town at that time devoted exclusively to the sale of tobacco and cigars.
"The man finally made a selection of a building on the east side of Main Street between Washington and Marion, and disappeared, saying his goods would be along in a few days. The stock came. It consisted of two small caddies of plug tobacco, a barrel of smoking tobacco, a box of clay pipes, a half dozen boxes of cigars, five barrels of whisky and ten kegs of variously branded gin, rum, wine and brandy. To say that the people of Monticello were shocked is putting it mildly. They were taken off their feet. The temperance people were justly indignant. They had worked for a year or more to rid the town of the traffic, and all for naught." A committee was again appointed to negotiate with the liquor dealer with a view to the purchase of his stock on condition that he leave the town. The stock was not for sale. The committee were ordercd from the place, with threats of personal violence should they return—a loaded revolver and other weapons being pointed out, kept in a convenient place for any one who should have the temerity to "interfere with his business." All this the committee duly reported, and further operations were for a time suspended. Mr. Sill continues his account as follows:
"The cigar and tobacco store opened and did a rushing business, but its patrons all provided themselves with a jug before entering the store to make their purchases. * * * There were about one hundred men at work Leveling the grade and placing the ties preparatory to laying the rails on the track of the State Line and Logansport division of the Pennsylvania railroad through the town, and these men were the chief customers of the cigar store. Every night two or three score of them would visit the store, and the proprietor, after locking the door, would attend to their wants as long as they had a dime to spend, and then pass them out at the back door in a condition ill calculated to preserve the peace of the town for the remainder of the night. Fifty or sixty drunken men nightly parading the streets of our before quiet and orderly village, whooping and yelling like madmen and using vile and insulting language toward every one they met, was a condition not to be borne with equanimity by those of our citizens who favored the temperance movement and another effort was made to purchase the stock. The committee found the proprietor more insolent and insulting in his refusal to sell than he had been at the first interview. Remonstrance, persuasion and argument were all tried in vain, and as a last resort some of the citizens concluded to use forcible measures to rid the town of the nuisance."
"They were not all temperance workers who joined in this movement," says Mr. Sill, and as it was later disclosed that he was among the number, the following account of the proceedings is probably pretty accurate. He continues:
"They were terribly in earnest in their effort to stop this reign of disorder, and they acted promptly. The greatest difficulty was to gain entrance to the place at night with breaking the door, which was always locked at night and none but those who had the mystic password could gain admittance. It so happened that the late Samuel Cooper (a mulatto barber well known in Monticello for many years) the only colored gentleman then living in the county, bad been in the employ of the cigar man and had learned the word but refused to divulge it to any one. He was finally persuaded by the gift of a dollar and a gallon jug to get the door opened on a certain night; and armed with these requisites he went to the place closely followed by seven men, much blacker than himself, each armed with a bright new hatchet; and when the proprietor opened the door a rush was made by the seven and entrance gained despite the stout resistance of the proprietor, who, in the melee received a blow on the head from one of the hatchets which rendered him 'hors de combat' and with a cry of murder, he broke open the door of a dwelling house adjoining his place of business and crept under the bed.
"With an artificial negro at each door to guard against intrusion the five remaining proceeded to the work of destruction, which was completed before any one arrived to molest them. Five barrels of whisky, with all the kegs containing any liquid, were opened and the contents emptied on the floor, after which the mob passed out at the back door and quietly disappeared." The next day the outraged proprietor appeared before a justice of the peace and procured a warrant for the arrest of F. H. Keifhaber, known to him as "the big blacksmith." Mr. Keifhaber was always a prominent and aggressive temperance worker, but he easily established an alibi and satisfied the court that he was not among the raiders. James Lynch, one of the real culprits, was also arrested, but the evidence against him was deemed insufficient and he was freed.
The proprietor of the joint gathered up his small stock of tobacco and cigars, pocketed the revolver with which he had threatened such dire calamity to all who should dare interfere with his business, and departed withont more ado; and peace and quiet once more reigned in this little village on the banks of the Tippecanoe.
The proprietor of the cigar store threatened to return with a new stock, and for several days and nights the river crossings were closely guarded by vigilantes; but so far as known he was never afterward seen in Monticello. Even his name is forgotten. The seven participants in the raid on his joint were Milton M. Sill, John Price, James Lynch, Watt Brown, Samuel Ayers, James Staley and another whose name is not remembered. Of these, James Staley, Watt Brown and John Price soon after enlisted in the army and Staley and Brown were killed in battle. All are now dead, and of the spectators who witnessed the raid Capt. Benjamin F. Price is the only known survivor.
The war coming on soon after the above events, the temperance question was for a time overshadowed by larger things; and when next we hear of it saloons were again established in Monticello.
In the early part of 1877 there spread over Northern Indiana a temperance movement known as the "Red Ribbon" movement, which had quite a vogue for a while, but White County seemed a little out of its line of march. However, in July of that year there arrived in Monticello a man named F. O. Smith, a nephew and an earnest disciple of Francis Murphy, the noted temperance evangelist, who started a temperance crusade known as the "Blue Ribbon" movement. His first meeting, held in the Presbyterian Church, resulted in seventy signers to the pledge. The newspaper account thus continues:
"On Saturday evening he addressed a similar meeting at the Methodist Church and obtained some seventy signers. On Sunday night a thoroughly interested audience greeted the lecturer, when he at last arrived post haste from a very encouraging meeting at Idaville, and one hundred signers rewarded his efforts. On Monday evening there were speeches by Mr. Smith, Dr. Bushnell, Captain Brown and others and a committee of five was appointed to nominate officers for the Temperance Union to be organized in this place. Then fifty signers were easily obtained and the meeting adjourned until Tuesday night when the committee on nomination will report. This is what is known as the 'Murphy Movement,' the tidal wave has struck us and the spirit of reform is pouring down upon us like a flood."
In Logansport the same movement gathered in over 5,000, among them being many who had been strong drinkers. However, the Idaville correspondent to the Monticello Herald in its issue of August 2d, says: "The temperance excitement did not rise very high here—perhaps for the reason that we have very little material that the Murphy improvement can affect. We are fortunate in not being able to sustain a saloon in Idaville, and in consequence it is a rare thing to see a man under the influence of liquor."
The meetings in Monticello continued nightly for several weeks, and not only in Monticello but also in all the smaller towns of the county and in many school districts. The noted temperance orator, Luthur Benson, was secured for two or three lectures and his fervid oratory, based on his personal experiences as almost a lifelong slave to the drink habit, made a deep impression. The interest was such as had never before been seen in Monticello. Nearly everybody signed the pledge, among them many who had been notorious drinkers for many years. To aid these latter there was organized in Monticello a secret order calling themselves "The Sovereigns of the Red Star," which was "joined" by a number of both former drinkers and non-drinkers. A constitution and corporate seal were adopted, a lodge room rented and furnished and for some three or four years regular meetings were held. The prime mover in the "Red Star" movement was County Recorder R. L. Harvey, who, though not himself addicted to the use of liquor, had much influence with those who were.
In the course of years, however, the temperance wave receded and the saloons came into their own again. This meant that they soon controlled local polities in a large measure, dictated nominations in both parties so far as they cared to do so, and helped elect to office those that were the least objectionable to their business; and these conditions continued with scarcely a check for more than twenty years. Some of those engaged in running saloons conducted the business on a little higher plane than others, but very few of them made any pretense of living up to the strict letter of the law, the excuse being "the others do it, so I am compelled to." The consequence was that by 1905 or 1906 Monticello saloons had become numerous and notorious; and not only in Monticello, where there were nine, but every other town in the county numbered these schools for lawbreakers in like proportion, except Idaville, and even there an occasional quart shop would break out and run a brief career.
These were the conditions prevailing early in 1906, when talk of again putting on the lid began to attract general notice. Miss Shontz, of Chicago, came to Monticello on February 22, 1906, and gave a forcible temperance talk; soon followed by other meetings by men sent out by the Anti-Saloon League. An effort was made to file a remonstrance under the Nicholson law in time to prevent the granting of four saloon licenses in Monticello at the March term 1906 of Commissioners' Court, but it was found impossible to secure the signatures of a majority of the voters in the township. People in the country signed it quite readily, but in town many of the business men refused to sign, fearing that it would injure their business. Commenting on this the Democrat of March 9, 1906, said:
"The Democrat has but little patience with people of this kind. The man who makes loud professions of morality and, on the final test, refuses to do what he believes to be right, not only proclaims himself a hypocrite but advertises the fact that he can be bribed to do that which he believes to be wrong. The fight, however, is not yet over. The time for open and flagrant violations of law in Monticello is past. The saloons have gained an extension of their life tenure, but its length probably depends upon an absolutely strict and honest observance of the laws governing their business."
Instead of profiting from this tip and reefing sail in preparation for the impending storm the saloon element apparently grew more arrogant, and drove many to line up against them by their vicious and sweeping abuse of the temperance forces. Anti-saloon meetings continued and more remonstrance cards were signed until at the May, 1906, meeting of the board of commissioners a "blanket" remonstrance against all saloons in Union Township was filed, containing 536 names, being 44 more than a majority of the voters.
The anti-saloon people were, of course, much elated. They had a clear majority and had no fear of the outcome. However, they were yet to learn a thing or two. The saloon element were engaged in a life or death struggle and they all stood together, prepared to go the length and "show these temperance cranks where to head in." And they made their boast good. The hearing was held before the board at an adjourned session at which all signers of the remonstrance cards were summoned to attend and verify their signatures. Many were objected to because they were not legal voters, others because it was alleged that their signatures had been bought, and others—with foreign sounding names—because it could not be proven that they bad ever been "naturalized." Among the latter was Barney Fretz, whose name sounded so "Dutchy" that he was cast into the discard despite the fact that he was born in Indiana, had been in Monticello two years and had voted there at two elections. Barney was a printer employed in the Evening Journal office, and what that paper said in way of criticism of the board was a plenty. However, when the board and the saloonkeepers' attorneys got through with the remonstrance it was a "tie" and the remonstrators had lost.
The manifest unfairness of this outcome and the intemperate abuse heaped upon the anti-saloon workers by the saloonkeepers and their sympathizers soon began to react, and many who had hitherto stood aloof now became active workers in the ranks of those who were striving to oust the saloons—many of them not because they were opposed to drinking per se, or even opposed to saloons if properly conducted, but because they were tired of arrogant saloon domination, with all its attendant, law-defying evils. Their efforts culminated in the filing of a new remonstrance which came before the commissioners at their September term, 1906. This remonstrance contained 523 names. As half the legal voters at the last election was 492, this gave them thirty-one names to the good on the face of their paper; and so carefully had they culled out the doubtfuls that they again felt confident of success.
The saloonkeepers again marshaled a formidable array of legal talent, including the attorney for the State Brewers' Association at Indianapolis; but this was met by an equally strong showing on the other side, including Judge R. P. Davidson of Lafayette, Attorney Menton of Martinsville, and Attorneys George E. Marvin, R. J. Million, W. S. Bushnell, L. D. Carey, J. T. Graves and George W. Kassabaum, of the local bar. The remonstrance was held good, but the saloon interests took an appeal to the White Circuit Court, where the case was dismissed at the March term, 1907. In the meantime, before the dismissal of the appeal and to guard against a possible defeat in the case above mentioned, the remonstrators filed another remonstrance containing a majority of sixty-nine names. This was filed on March 1, 1907, and thereafter Union Township and Monticello were guarded against saloons by two legal remonstrances, which would effectually bar saloons for a period of two years.
However, three of the saloonkeepers who had been put out of business conceived the idea of a social club, which they proceeded to organize and incorporate under the name of "The Monticello Club." Their articles of incorporation stated that "The objects of the corporation shall be for the social enjoyment and pleasure of its members in social games, tests of skill, music, reading, refreshments and harmless amusements." These articles were drawn up September 28, 1906, but in spite of the suggestiveness of this declaration of principles—or possibly be cause of it—the membership failed to assume alarming proportions, and after a brief career the "club rooms" were vacated and the incorporators removed to greener pastures.
On March 4, 1907, two saloons run by John H. Randall and John Vaughn closed their doors; on March 5th the Forbis Hotel bar, conducted by Elmer E. Malone, closed down; and eleven days later, March 16, 1907, the saloon conducted by Stuart Fox in the old Fox & Karp building east of the courthouse, closed its doors after being used for saloon purposes continuously for a little more than thirty years, and for practically the first time in the town's history Monticello was without a saloon.
While Monticello had been thus struggling with the saloon question other towns in the county had not been idle, and in a short time saloons had been remonstrated out of every town in the county. Blanket remonstrances against saloons held good for only two years, however, and at the end of that time, if no new remonstrance had been filed in the county auditor's office an applicant could again be granted liquor license. This kept both elements constantly on the watch seeking advantage, necessitated canvassing for new remonstrances every two years, and thus kept up the bitter feeling between the supporters and the opponents of saloons in every community. Because of these unpleasant features, in a measure, Mr. J. P. Simons, then editor of the White County Democrat, wrote a resolution which he presented to the Indiana Democratic Editorial Association at its midwinter meeting in Indianapolis, February 7, 1908, which read as follows:
"With a firm belief in the righteousness of the democratic principle of the rule of the majority as expressed in a free and untrammeled ballot, we would add to the present laws regulating the liquor traffic a local option law giving to the people of each community an opportunity to express their sentiments regarding the sale of liquor in their midst, freed from the turmoil, annoyances and business disturbances in many instances attending the operations of the present remonstrance law."
This was probably the first resolution favoring a local option law on the liquor question ever presented in Indiana. It was adopted by the Democratic Editorial Association just as written by the Monticello editor, and the substance of it was incorporated in the democratic state platform a few weeks later in a declaration for local option with the township as the voting unit; and later it was incorporated in the republican state platform, with the county as the voting unit. This led to the calling of a special session of the Indiana Legislature in September and the passage of a county option law, whereby a majority of the legal voters of a county could exclude saloons from all the towns and townships of the county.
Under this law there was filed with the commissioners in April, 1909, a petition signed by 2,006 names, a little over 40 per cent of the total voting population of the county, asking for a county election on the question of saloons or no saloons in White County. The election was ordered to be held April 26. The saloon forces instituted proceedings to enjoin the holding of the election and secured a temporary restraining order, but on a hearing before Circuit Judge James P. Wason, three days before the day set for the election, the injunction was refused and the restraining order dissolved.
At this time there were but two saloons in the county. These had but recently opened up at Wolcott, not because the people wanted them but because of a defect discovered in the remonstrance on file from that place. At the electi6n, held on Monday, April 26, 1909, the "drys" won by a majority of 1,435, the vote being 1,137 "wet" and 2,572 "dry." Every precinct in the county gave a dry majority except precinct No. 1 in Honey Creek, which gave a "wet" majority of nine. The result was an emphatic expression of the people on the saloon question and was a great surprise to the saloon forces. This was especially true in Union Township, where, in the face of the report that the people of Monticello were dissatisfied with conditions and were anxious for the return of the "business bringers," the dry majority was 244. Commenting on this the Democrat said:
"That Monticello's prosperity does not depend upon the saloon is now patent to all. There are no vacant business rooms in the town, no residences to be had for love or money and there is an urgent call for the construction of a number of new houses for rent within the next year. The notion that saloons and booze are necessary adjuncts to a live, prosperous town or city is utterly fallacious. Let's talk of some thing else."
The Herald said: "White County proved true to her name, and every precinct in the county but one recorded a verdict against the licensed saloon. In one respect White County differs from all others where elections have been held. Instead of the county seat township being the citadel of the 'wets' it gave the banner 'dry' majority of all the townships in the county."
The Legislature of 1911 repealed the county unit option law and enacted in its stead a law called the Proctor Law, making the city and the township the option unit. It also provided that all places voted "dry" under the county option law should become open to the return of saloons at the end of two years from the time the county option election was held. Thus, in order to prevent the return of saloons, it became necessary to hold elections under the Proctor law in the several units in White County prior to the meeting of the commissioners in May, 1911.
A conference was held at Reynolds on March 17, 1911, attended by representatives from all the townships where it was feared the saloons might undertake to again open up. At this conference it was decided to hold option elections in the townships of Princeton, Monon, Honey Creek, Big Creek and Prairie, and in the City of Monticello. Petitions were accordingly prepared and presented to the commissioners on April 3rd, and the elections all fixed for the same day—April 27th.
Again the battle was on, and the saloon and anti-saloon forces lined up for what they hoped would be the final struggle. All the papers of the county were again arrayed on the "dry" side; the two party papers in Monticello being especially aggressive. As in the previous fights. party lines were disregarded entirely, leading members of all parties being found on both sides. It was noticeable, however, that the republicans, who were opposed to saloons, while in nowise compromising with the saloon element, were somewhat inclined to the let the "dry" democrats assume the burden of the campaign work. This was perhaps but natural, as these new option elections were made necessary because the democratic Legislature of 1911 had substituted the Proctor law for the county option law passed by a republican Legislature in 1908, and in doing so had undone all that had been accomplished under the county option law.
This attitude of the republicans was rather forcibly indicated in a mass meeting held in the Presbyterian Church on Sunday evening before the election. Of this meeting the Herald gave the following report:
"The Presbyterian church was packed to the doors Sunday night at a union meeting of all the churches held for the purpose of quickening the anti-saloon sentiment preparatory to Thursday's option election. It was not a ministerial meeting, for all the speakers were laymen; it was not a church meeting, for some of the speakers were not members of any church; it was not a republican meeting, for all the speakers were democrats, the republicans being content to listen and join in the applause. It was a citizens meeting composed of members of all churches and no church, both sexes and all parties. The speakers were George Marvin, Wesley Taylor, Dr. McCann, Chas. C. Spencer and E. B. Sellers. All the speakers expressed their preference for a 'dry' Monticello and declared their purpose to help keep it so. Each presented the subject from his own viewpoint and in a manner that called forth generous applause."
All eyes were focused on Monticello, which had assumed a city government since the election of two years before and was now an option unit within itself. Mr. J. P. Simons, editor of the Democrat, was selected as chairman of the "dry" forces and an active organization was soon effected. In his issue of April 14 Editor Simons said:
"It is pretty generally known that the Democrat is opposed to saloons and to saloon influence, and this paper will hardly be accused of being afraid to express itself clearly and positively on this point; yet notwithstanding these positive views as to the evil influence of saloons and saloon surroundings in a community, the editor of this paper is not a 'temperance crank,' is not a prohibitionist and does not even belong to the Anti-saloon League.
"We have no desire to interfere with any man's personal privilege to eat what he pleases or to drink what he pleases so long as he doesn't injure or annoy anyone else. Our own notion about drinking, based upon some years of personal experience, is that every man is better off not to use liquors as a beverage; and that any man can do his best work and attend to his business best when he hasn't a drop in him—when his head is perfectly clear. Every man who has ever drank knows this to be true. Therefore our advice to everyone would be don't drink. You feel better and are better off without it. Especially don't acquire the habit so that it requires a constant struggle to keep from drinking too much. The man who keeps his thinking apparatus free from the effects of booze has the battle of life half won.
"Then why should any man vote to return the saloon to Monticello, and make it easy for young men to acquire the habit or for older men to cultivate the habit already acquired? Based upon some thirty years more or less intimate acquaintance with saloons and their fruits, both inside and out, the Democrat asserts, what every man and every woman who knows anything about them knows to be true—that the great majority of saloons are schools for vice and crime; and that from cellar to garret, inside and outside, they are law defiers and lawbreakers twenty-four hours out of the day, seven days in the week; and their influence on those who frequent them and on the community in which they are located is wholly bad."
That the farmers of the surrounding country were deeply interested in the outcome was shown by the following petition:
"To the Voters of the City of Monticello generally, and to the Trades people especially:—
"We, the undersigned citizens of Union township outside the city limits of Monticello, and in the country tributary thereto, not being permitted by law to vote in the coming local option election, but being deeply interested in the outcome thereof, having in mind and earnestly wishing for the best interests of our home city, the place where we do our trading, do most respectfully and earnestly petition you to continue the present policy of prohibiting the licensed saloon with all its attendant evils."
This was signed by eighty-eight of the prominent farmers around Monticello and was published with all the names attached in the Herald of April 20th, and in the Democrat of April 21st.
The election on April 27th in the units voting resulted as follows:
Monticello, dry, 336; wet, 238.
Big Creek Township, dry, 160; wet, 55.
Cass Township, dry, 98; wet, 31.
Honey Creek Township, dry, 133; wet, 153
Monon Township, dry, 299; wet, 130.
Prairie Township, dry, 336; wet, 238.
Princeton Township, dry, 245; wet, 1180.
As Honey Creek Township was the only unit to vote "wet," the people of Reynolds and vicinity concluded that they did not care to be the source of irrigation for such a wide stretch of dry territory, and met the emergency by a remonstrance, signed by a majority of the voters. This settled the saloon question in White County until October, 1915, when, on petition of 150 residents of Monon representing the "wet" element, another election was ordered in that township. The election was held October 29, 1915, and resulted in an overwhelming defeat of the saloon side, the vote being 151 "wet" and 435 "dry;" the votes of the saloon side being seven less than the number signing the petition for the election. In precinct No. 4 only three "wet" votes were cast. It does not now seem probable that saloons will ever again be permitted in White County.
The last public destruction of liquor in Monticello took place in the spring of 1909, when Sheriff Ben Price, Jr., carried out into the street and destroyed a large stock of liquors which had been captured by Sheriff H. E. McCully in a raid on an alleged illegal establishment in Monon, conducted by Sam A. Rose, one of Monticello's former saloon-keepers. The sheriff was assisted in the destruction by several persons, among them being Postmaster William F. Bunnell, Rev. C. J. Armentrout, pastor of the Presbyterian Church, and others. The occasion caused various facetious comments from the crowd assembled, and Monticello's local bard, Attorney Will S. Bushnell, immortalized the event in his inimitable manner, as follows: