July 31, 1917

Ion. W. H. THOMPSON, Washington, D. a.

1\fy DEAR Sm : . In an.swer to , your letter as to · whether prohibition in Kansas is . a failure or actually prohibits, thereby lessening drunkenness and crime, as I have observed as one of the law-enforcing citizens of the State, would say I do not know of any law in the State that prohibits any better than the prohibitory law; and as for lessening drunkenness, there are very few persons ever seen on the streets of Ottawa in ·· toxicated-a city of 10,000-and most of them · are persons that bought their liquor in Kansas City or of some bootlegger that got it in Kansas City. And quite a number of cases that are brought before me for intoxication are persons taken off the trains coming out of Kansas City; and for several--years after the prohibitory law I was contracting, building railroads, gt:ading, and had contracts in Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Missouri, and I never bad one-fourth the trouble on pay day of men drinking in Kansas as I had in the States that had no prohib - tory law and the law is being better enforced every year. • * * I have lived in Kansas 47 years and know the difference before prohibition and after.

Yours, very truly, R. S. PARKER, City Clerk

GEARY COUNTY.

JuNCTION CITY, KANS., January 17, 1917.

Hon. W. H. THOMPSON, Washington, D. 0.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Your letter of the 3d instant, one of which was addressed to each of the undersigned, has been duly received. It is, indeed, a .pleasure for us to answer your letter in the spirit in which it was written. .

For a number of years after the passage of the prohibitory law In Kansas this city was conducted under the old fine system, which was l n effect a htgh,-lieense system. About 10 years ago the citizens elected a law-'and-order ticket. At that time it was - almost t he universal opinion among business men that the city could not exist under law enforcement, because It depended upon Fort Riley, to a large extent, and the soldiers th e re for it· business; it being contended that the soldiers would spend all Oi. their money in Kan as City and very little of it in our city, and thus many of the business houses would be forced to close .

Time has shown that this opinion was erroneous. There have been a numb e r of businesses clo ed out, but they were of the class that were undesirable and that go with an open town, consequently have not been missed by our citizens.

Our population is not quite as large now as it was then because of the exodus of a number of undesirable citizens. This exodus, however, bas be ~ n a great help in improving the moral conditions.

It has been the earnest endeavor of the officers at all times during the pa t 10 years to enforce all laws and e . especially the prohibitory liquor law. Naturally drurkenness has materially decreased, as has all other crimes. . We have made an examination of the records and find that our police and district court record~" show a decrease in crime and prosecution for offenses of at least 500 per cent. This may seem large, but an examination of the re c o<d · will bear us out.

We might also add that arrests are mad e much more readily now for the same offenses than they were when the prohibitory law was not enforced.

We believe that condition~ have improved economically as well as morally. Our rate of taxation is at least as low as it was in the old days, with many improvements and advantages. This, of cour e, has b ee n brought about to some extent by changing from a. gove _ government by mayor and council to the commission form ot government.

Hoping that you will have success in this fight in the Senate, we remain

Very respectfully, ycurs, J. I. KERN, Police Judge

M. D. PEESO, City Marshal. • I. M. PLATT, City Attorney. JuNCTION CITY, KAxs., January 8, 19rt. Hon. WM. II. THOMPSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

As to the question wh-ther prohibition in Kansas is a failure, I have to say that no statement can be more absurd or false. The influence of the saloon and its accompanying vices are gone and our young men no longer influenced by the glittering attractions to entice them into the web of damnation. · .

As you know we have the large military reservation. Fort Riley, here, and only a few years ago this city bad 15 wi:de-open saloons, and on pay day at the fort our city was filled with drunken people; as many as 50 could be seen staggering along our principal street at one time, but this condition has ceased to exist, l am glad to say. We closed up these saloons and now it is v~r'l seldom-yes, a rare occasion-that one sees a drunk e n man on our streets. Our business men state that their collections are much improved, and conditions are so much improved that our citizens who at the first feared that by closing the saloons we would hurt business now say that they would not want the old conditions wijbw~~e e~:~r~i\ounty attorney of this. Geary County, Kans., in 1910. and have served as such offi c eT up to this date. When I first took up the work of said office we bad two and three weeks each term of court to complete our court docket in our district court. Our court expenses to our taxpayers was $2 000 and more each term. Our criminal docket was large and ou r city had the name of a very wicked and immoral town but to-day our court docket has been so reduced by the elimination ·or the saloon that we have tJu · ee or four days for a term of court instead of weeks and the costs per term has been reduced more than three-fourths. All s~y what a wonderful change. • Very respectfully, WM. W. PEASE, Cou-nty AttornmJ.

GOVE COUNTY.

GOVE, KANS., January 3$ 1911.

llon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. 0.

}IoNORED SIR: Replying to your letter of the 30th . ultimo, making inquiries for my observations as to whether the prohibitory law has been a success or failure in Kansas.

During my term of office as county attorney of Gove County, Kans., my experience has been and my opinion formed from that observation are that the prohibitory law in this State and county is a. decided success Even the fellows, or a majority of them, that use the liquor would be opposed to the open saloon. Furthermore, I do not believe that you could get an opinion from any of the better class o! people of this State that would indicate the contrary.

And while I realize there have been more or less violations of the prohibitory law which have not been punished. just the same as ttie11e have been of other laws on the statute books. yet taken as a. whole I think the law is pretty well enforced. . .

Trusting the above may be of some use to you, and with kindest per · - sona.l regards, I am, ~

Yours, very truly,

E. F. BECKNER,

Co · County .Atto1'11C1J.

GRANT COUNTY.

New ULYSSES, K&NS., January 5, 19r1.

Hon. WILLIA I II. THOMPSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR Sm: R e plying to your favor of the 30th ultimo, beg to advise that my ob ervation of the operation of the prohibitory law in Kansas leads ml:' to believe that even though it has been in some instances indifferently enforced, it has done more to lessen drunkenness and crime than any other one thing. I might further add that I believe the prohibitory law. as written, is for practical purposes actually enforced, and that a. Federal law which would reach interstate commerce, prohibiting the shipment of liquor from a wet State into a. dry State or through a dry State, would enable the peace officers of a dry State to enforce to the letter their prohibitory laws, and would result in such a. lessening of drunkenness and crime and the consumption of intoxicating liquors as to seriously affect the manufacturers thereof.

Your., very truly,

. H. W .. STUBBS,

County Attorney Grant County.

GREENWOOD CO ::O.""TY.

City CLERK'S 0Fl!'lCD,

Eureka, Kans., January 9, 1917.

lion. WILLIAM H. THompson, United States Senate, Washington, D. () . .

DEAR Sm; Your favor of the 30th concerning the eff'ect of p-rob!bition in Kansas received. I think I can answer your question about a!'l intelligently by repeating to you a. conversation I had with a young lady who is a. bookkeeper a.nd cusbiC'r in our store. I asked her the question if she often saw a. drunken man in Eureka. She said she never had seen one, and she has bE'en raised right here. ·

I was here before we had prohibition in Kan as, and anyone that has had the experience I have · bad wouldn't argue fo:r a minute that prohibition oidn't prohibit.

Yours, truly, :M. A. MILLER, Mayor.

nAMILTON COUNTY.

SYRACUSE, KA-:o;S., JatltJai'JI 15, 1911, • Hon. WILLIA!I II. THompson, ,

Washington, D. C.

l\IY DE..lll. Senator: Your communication of the 30th ultimo, addressed to the county attorney at John ·on, received. I wish to congratulate you for the interest manifE'sted in prohibition. It is very gratifying to me to know that the United States Supreme Court has made it possible to IJl'Ohiblt common carriers to place wet goods in dry territories. Upon reading the decision the morning after it was announced, I immediately wrote a. letter to Mt·. R. E. Bray, our county representative, to use his influence in securing an amendment to our pr e e nt prohibition law. making the same conform to the Webb-Kenyon law of West Virginia. This makes it possible, as I see it, for Kansas to go dry since Colorado, Oklahoma, and Nebra ka are also prohibition States and neces!'arily will foiJow our example in amending our present law. The fact that w" have bee.n unable to excJude shipments into Kansas has made it difficult along tile border, as well as in the large cities of the interior of our , tat e , to exclude intoxicants. I trust our representatives !n Congress will all join with you in bringing about national prohibition by 1920, and that the Kansas Legislature · will enact a. proper bill to exclude liquor shipments from our beloved State. With best wishes for you and yours, I remain,

Most respectfully,

CHAs. W. BenTo:-.,

County · Attorney. Sl.-n.A.cusm,. KA:llS., January 4-, 1916. Hon. WM. H. THompson,

Washington, D. C.

M¥ DEAR Senator: I have yours of the 30th ultimo relative to the liquor situation in Kansas.

I noticed that Senator Reed, of Missouri, was quoted ae saying that there was more drunkenness in Kansas than in Missouri. Possibly I am not very familiar with the situation in Missouri, · but so far as Kansas is concerned, there is not a great amount of drunkenness, and the drunkenness that exists is not the fault of the prohibitory law. If the Federal Governm e nt would enact a law preventing the shipping of liquor into prohibition territory, it is my judgment that drunkenness in Kansas would be very rare.

Another thing, prohibition -ts lat•g e ly a matter of education. The boys .and girls now growing up in Kansas are being raJ ed under the influence of the prohibitory law. l\I()st of them have never seen a. saloon, and were it not for the fact that some of the elder residents of this State were addicted to the liquor habit, they probably would never have seen a case of drunkenness. It is true that' there is some bootlegging in Kansas and in my judicial district, but there is not nearly the liquor sold nor consumed in this district that there would be- U we had open saloons.

I sp • mt over 20 years of my life in a State that has local option. and have been in Kansas 18 years, the last 12' years of which time the prohibitory law has be-en enforced. I think conditions in Kansas are much preferable under the prohibitory law than in States which have local option. I am confident that our people would never consent to a change. The drunkenne s that exists in Kansas should not be charged to the prohibitory law. but should' be charged to the liquor interests, which ship liquor from wet territory' into Kansas. Wh('D we are protected against the ~iquor traffic from the out id~, we will th n be able to control the situation, and a. case of dru'Dkenne s in Kansas will be very, v e ry rare, indeed. With kind regards and best wishes, , I am, .

Very truly, yours,

GEORGE J. Downer,

Judge Thirty-second District.

HARVEl! COU-:o<TY.

NEWTON, KA.YS., January 8, 1?D· !Ion. W. H. THOMPSO::o<,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: ln rep l y to your favor of December 30 would say there fs ab olutely no que tton in the minds of our city commissioners or our citizens as ro the success of preb - il>!tion in Kan ·as and ill our city. Our officers are greatly handicapped by private shtpm ntis of liquor into the State, this being the mos serious obstacle to full enforcement of the law. Circulation of advertisements of mail-o~·der Hquo1· concerns is also very detrimental to the eanse~

In our opinion prohibition of liquor shipments into dry territory and exclusion of liquor · advertisements from the mails are two or the most · important !actors in making possible a strict enforcement of the prohibitory law.

Yours, very truly,

A. J. DUFF_. Mayor. r NEWTON, KANS., January S, 1911. Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, r

Un-ited State Senate, Washington, D. C. .

DEAR Sm: Your favor of December 30. 191G, .received relati-ve to - the question or prohibition in Kansas. a.n.cl you ask for my experience, observation, and views, ag one of the law-enforcing officers ol! the State. It has been my duty to enforce the prohibitory liquo.r law in Harvey: County for the last two years, and I feel qualified to speak from that experience. The city of Newton iH in Harvey County, antl it must be remembered that that city is peculiarly located in this. thm it is on the main line of the Santa Fe, east and west, and is one of Hs large division poi.nt on the main line, as well as on the line .extending south through Oklahoma and Texas. There are more than 40 passenger trains in an1l out of Newton every day,- and all stop here. In addition to that, we have interurban service from the city of Hutchinson and the city of Wichita every hour and twenty minutes. This makes it more difficult to enforce the prohibitory liquor law here than in many other counties of the State. .

The prohibitory liquor law in Kansas is not a failure; the -prohibitory liquor law in Kansas actually prohibits; as a result of our prohibitory liquor law there is less drunkenness, less crlme, and less immorality than in many States and places other than the State of Kansas with which I am familiar and which are not blessed with a similar law. There is no question but . that this is the result of our prohibitory One thing which makes our liquor law · harder to enforce than it otherwi e would be is due to the fact that the common carriers, the shippers of liquor, or the offiLers Df the United States Government do not obey and enforce the Federal law, which requires that the contents and amount of liquor shall be written plainly on the outside of the package. I wish to call your att~ntion to a single incident, to make myself plain. Last summer there were two consignments of liquor came to the express office here, and on the outside of each it was stated that the package contained 3 gallons of liquor, and I ascertained that tht> liquor was bottled in 2-ounce bottles. Fr . equently it is stated on the outside ot the package that it contains 1 gallon or 2 gallons, when it is bottled in pints ot• half pints. Your experience as a lawyer and on the bench and your knowledge of our liquor law will tell you that in Kansas there is · a vast difference between , 2 gallons and 32 half pints of liquor. As I have said before, if this law was strictly adhered to our troubles would be lessened.

In Harvey County during the past month of December, 1916, and with a strict enforcement of the liquor law, I have caused the arrest of only two people for drunkenness· and in the city of Newton, with a population of approximately 10,000, the:ce has been only three arrested foE drunkenness.

I believe that 9 out of every 10 crimes which I have had to deal with were due, either directly or indirectly, to liquor, and most of the "rot gut" came from Missouri. r can · think of only one case of immorality at this time which was not the result of. liquor.

If I <'.an give you any more data or can aid you in any other manner in your fight for national pruhibition, advise me, and I assure you that I will do all that I can.

With kindest personal reglfrds and best wishes of the season, I beg to remain,

V-ery respectfully, L. C. KELLEY,

Oounty Attorney. HALSTEAD, KAXS., January .f, 1917. lion. WILLIAM H. TliOMl>SON, w asllingtm~) D. a.

DIHR Sm: Your fight to uphold prohibition in Kansas has my hearty approval. I am serving my fourth term as mayor of. Halstead. Wt! have no paupers in our city. One mother . receives a mother's pension, whose husband sends all the money he can get to Missouri for booze. We have a clean tow.n, a happy people. Our "jail" is used foi'I a sleeping room for tramps who come from a whisky State.

I remain, very truly,

ELt M. HOOVER

Mayor of Halstead; KaJM. NEWTON, KANs., January 10, 1917. Hon. WILLI.All H. THOMPSON,

United States Senate, Wa-shington, D. a.

DEAR SIDNATOR: rt has been a source of great annoyance to me to observe that some of the men i.n our country holding high positions in the governmental agency of our country should be so biased and unfriendly to any cause that they would permit themselves to appear before the great legi:!lative bodies of the Nation and there make statements wh1en, w-ould they only take. pains to verify before speaking, would find most false.

Anyone who states privately or publicly that prohibition in Kansas is not a success makes such statement either through ignorance, desire to mislead, or on account of bias- and prejudice to the cause of temperance.

During the past 30 years I have been in position to observe the con· dition of the growth of temperance under prohibition . in this State; I have · conducted cases as prosecutor and as defender for many years. and I will be frank with you and state that for a number of years I have not defended a _ single liquor case in this (Harvey) county, for two very good reasons: First, we never here have a mm1 charged with the offense of selling. liquor, except he be a "low-down bum," a vagabond, an alley rat, or some fiend who has not arisen to the dignity of mature manhood, who is without means and only resorts to the alleys and byways to vend his goods; and, in the second place, I believe that no self-respecting attorney can afford to lower himself ou the plane with these men and defend his acts.

To say that there is no whisky sold in Kansas would state an un­ . truth; there is not a criminal statute that is not sometimes violated, but if we could remove whisky-ridden lvllsE.'OUri from our border the ' prohibition law would be less frequently violated than many other criminal statutes in our code. If Missouri will adopt prohibition, she will make . one of the greatest advancements she has e.ver made and at the same time relieve Kansas of one of the greatest menaces she has in the enforcement of her prohibitory law.

There are a few places in Kansas where it is a little hard to enforce the law, but this for the principal reason that they are close to Missouri and are touched with the contaminating influences of that State, and in a few other localities, far apart, where the sentiment of the maJor portion of the people is in accord with the sentiment expressed by some of - our so-called Representatives, makes it difficult to procure peace officers who will faithfully perform . their trust.

You can call the lie on any person who seeks to defame the name of this State with reference to prohibition, and an investi-gation of the facts will serve to place yoii among the true representatives of the . people where you rightfully belong;

I could cite instances, fur-nish proof of my statements, and supply you with much data which would refute all adverse comment; but same would not subserve your purpose.

Hoping that you ma-y be able to crucify all ;ru.dases and · annihilate , all blasphemers against prohibition, I beg to be and remain,

Respectfully, · .. ·

' B. H. ~URNER, City Attorney,

HODGEMAN COUNTY.

JETMORE, KANS., Jantta-ry 5, 1911. Hon. WILLIAM . .UI H. THOMPSOX, .

• Washington, D. 0. I

DEAR SENATOR: Yours of recent date asking about the working of our so-called prohibition law was received.

In response thereto will say that I am fully satisfied with the Jaw and the manner in which U is enforced. .All that is required is action by our National Congress In order that our State law may be made more · effective. .

I came to Hodgeman County 39 y-ears ago. At that time the county was unorganized. I have witnessed, taken part in, and lived through the grea:t struggle to eliminate the saloon and the liquor traffic from the State. ·

That the law works and 1s enforced must be admitted by the most rabid saloonist. When it is remembered that the princU>al features of the law says "no make" and "no sale" of liquor within the State it becomes apparent that it does prohibit. There are no breweries, distilleries, or saloons within the State, although there is . an occasional bootlegger. But there also are an occasional horse thief, a cattle thief, an embezzler, a murderer, etc.

The reason why there are no breweries, distilleries, nor saloons within the State is because such institutions are prohibited by law. And the Jaw does prohibit.

Those who declare that our prohibition law d€les not prohibit will point to the fact that some liquor is drank within the State and that there are some cases of drunkenness, even more cases of drunkenness than there ought to be. These apologists for the liquor traffic try to make' it appear that when one takes a drink of liquor within the State or gets drunk the prohibition law has been violated. But such is not the case. There is no law in Kansas which forbids one to take a drink of liquor ; and as lo.ng as one may lawfully ship it into the State as interstate commerce more or less liquor will be drank and there will be more or less cases of drunkenness . In all this there is no violation of the prohibition law, as the law against drunkenness is not properly a part of the prohibition law, for such law existed before the passage of our prohibition law, and such law against drunkenness is a part of the law of every State where the saloon exists.

So it is quite beside the question to point to the fact that intoxicating liquor is lawfully shipped into the State and drank and that there are some caS'es of drunkenness as a result as constituting a violation of the prohibition law. But all this does show the imperative need for action by .our Feder.al Congress so as to forbid the shipment of liquor into dry States. Instead of such facts showing a violation of the prohibition law, it shows a culpable inaction on the part of Congress. One may look at the Wilson Act. the Webb-Kenyon Act, etc., and see where mere sops have been thrown to States that have been trying for - years to eliminate a great evil. And just w~ may lawfully be done u.ntler those acts "is pointed out as a violation of our State prohibition 1aw. Hypocrisy can go no further.

You. will readily perceive that Federal action is necessary in order that ' our prohibition law may be made to work more e:trectively. Wh-y this action should not come from Congress without awaiting a constitutional amendment Is a matter I do not comprehend. Of course, to await the adoption of a constitutional amendment delays the matter and gives the saloon forces time to attempt to change public sentiment. When I .hear a man talking about taking steps to supl?ress the liquor traffic and his scheme postpones the time of effective action to some distant future day I feel some doubts as to his real attitude toward the question. Perhaps I should say that I feel no doubt as to where he stand~ What is desired Is action now. If Congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, why not . commence now and regulate and prevent the shipment of intoxicating liquor into dry States?

We forbid tlie shipment into the State of Texas ' cattle for fear they might give our stock Texas or Spanish fever, an(l the act is valid but rot-gut whisky is an article of interstate commerce and must come Li. Senator 1 give us an act of Congress at once that will prevent the shipment of. liquor into dry territory, or permit the dry States to lo so. Then the matter of a constitutional amendment can be submitted and we can await the time for action thereon.

With best wishes for you now and in the future, I am,

Very truly, yours,

ALBERT H. WILSON,

Oounty .A.ttot·ne · y. P. S.-I - go out of the office of county attorney Monday, but am still .a Democrat and ready to do all necessary work,

JACKSON COU~'rY.

OFFICE OF SHERIFF OF JACKSO~ COUNTY,

Holt0111_, Kans., Janua111 11, 1917. Senator THOMPSON-,

Washington, D. G.

DEAR Sir: Yours of December 30, 1916, received some time ago. Pardon me for not answering sooner. I am sure pleased to hear that you are taking the position you are on the question of prohibition, for If there is any one issue that I think should become a national law it surely should be the question of prohibition.

From my observation the intoxicatin_g, liquor that is shipped into the State of Kansas from Missouri and other States not having the prohibitory law causes at least 90 per cent of the criminal cases that are brought before the courts.

I have kept a record of the men that have come under my control as sheriff in the years of 1915 and 1916, and find that 96 per cent of them drink intoxicating liquors and 90 per cent are cigarette users. I know these figures to be correct and I am sure · that it is an easy matter to decide what liquor will do for a man.

I am giving you these facts just as I have experienced and observed them and give you my consent to use them in any way that will help to bring about any good nationa.l prohibitory law.

Any time that L C3.Il be of any service to you let me know.

I am, yours, respectfully,

- CHAS. E. Jo~SON, • B1leriff.

JoEFFERSO COUNTY.

OF.FICE OF S'i"ERIFF- · OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,

0B1:aloasa_, Kans., Janua.ry 5, 1917. Hon. W. H. 'TIHOMPSON,

United Sta.te-s · Senate, Washington, . gtQn, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Your letter of 30th ultimo, making inquiry re· garding prohibition in Kansas duly received.

The consumption of intoxicating liquors in this county is not more than 10 to 15 per cent of what it was before prohibition, but the quality is bad and is obtained from Missouri, this county being only one · county ' from the Missouri River. . ·

The prohibitory law . is well enforced in this county and viOlations called “bootlegging” exists in only a few places, and are very carefully and cautiously conducted.

The close proximity to the Missouri line is taken advantage of to procure Jiquor, and the illicit nature of this creates a desire to use it immediately and this, with the vile character of the liquor itself, is the llon. WILLIAM cause of 99 per cent of the drunkenness in this county.

'l'bis use and abuse is confined to the low element of whites and negroes. It is nearly impossible for a respectable looking person to buy a drink of liquor within the county. During the past two years the jail has be • !a vacant 204 days, over one-fourth of the time.

The total confinement in the county jail during the past two ~ears has been 1,515 days, of which 1,320 days was for violations Qf the prohJbl~.:>ry law, smd serving sentences thereunder. Nearly every arrest has resulted in conviction for several years.

Respectfully, yours,

E. w. O'BniE~, Sheriff Jefferson County,

JEWELL COUNTY.

MANKATO, KANS., January t:f, 1917. lion. WILLIAM ll. THO ii'SON,

VnitccJ. States Senate, Washington, JJ. a.

DEAR Sir: In reply to yours of the 30th ultimo, I will say that I am absolutely of the opinion that prohibition in Kansas is not a failure notwith tanding statements and representations made by our neighbors from Missouri, and in my opinion the law is a good one, and the more strict It is made the better it will be. I don't believe that Kansas has the drunkenness cr crimes and other resulting immorality that the people of Missouri have, and I would rather cut off my head than to go back on the things given us by the · people in the eighties, which have been a great help and blessing to us. I am for national prohibition first, last, and for all time. · Yours, very truly, C. CLYDE MYERS, County Attorney, Jewell aonntv, Kans.

KEAR!'iY COUNTY.

LAKIN, KANS., January 9, 19n.

Hon. WILLIAM ll. THOMPSON, Washington, D. a.

DE.AR Sm : In reply to yours of December 30 in regard to the success or failure of prohibition in Kansas, will say that m my opinion it has been a great success. • . •

Although our prohibition laws might be made more strict, yet I believe that the reduced number of crimes committed, the morality, prosperity, and the great progress of Kansas can be attributed to prohibition.

· yours, very truly, -

B. L. IIART, County Attorney.

KINGMAN COUNTY.

Kl:-<oMAN, KANS., January 4, 1911. • Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, / Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Yours relative to prohibition in Kansas at band, and will say that whatever failure that might be charged to the law in this State is chargeable to the attitude of the National Government.

They reserve the right to allow anyone at any time to ship booze , into tb.ls State, and go farther, and give them licenses to operate. Kansas has good Jaws, and they do lots of good, but they are handicapped in that they are nullified in so many . ny ways by the national attitude.

You, of course, know that the worst boozers that we have in this State have acquired the appetite in other States and have come heL·e, thinking that they could get away from it and straighten up. "ben they got here, they found it so easy to get 1t from another State under the interstate-commerce art that the result was that they have gouo on in their drinking, and any unlawful act they might have committed was credited to the State of Kansas and the failure of the prohibition laws here. .

We have some drunkenness here, but I find in nearly every case it is the result of a club shipment of liquor, and then they meet at some party's home or barn and . get drunk. If the shipments were under the control of the State or prohibited, there would be some chance to control the situation here.

At this time we have the most in om· city jail that there has been at any one time in three years. We have three there. Two for New Year ' s drunks and one for bootlegging. I presume that this will compare favorably even now with cities of this size in other States having saloons. We have a population of about 3,000.

The time is coming that a man - who wishes any favors from Kansas will have to stand right on this liquor proposition. It will be well for lt,.OU to look over the record in the last campaign of that man Kirschner. who went into the campaign with no money behind him and to what was most certainly a losing fight as far u.s election was concerned.

Hope you succeed in getting something through.

Yours, truly,

CLYDE Murry,

Mayor of the City of Kingman.

LAllET'.fE COUNTY.

POLICE CounT,

Parsons, Kans., January 6, 1911, Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON,

Washington, D. a.

DEAR Sm : In answer to your letter of the 30th instant ill regard to prohibition in "'Kansas, I will say that it is a great success.

Up to the time when prohibition _' came into effect, about June 1, 1909, there were 23 drug stores in Parsons that sold intoxicating liquors. This astounding number of drug stores was diminished to five after the law went into effect. After my years of experience, l believe I can say that 90 per cent of all crimes committed are caused by intoxicating liquors. Prohibition has lessened drunkenness and crime and has resulted economically as well as morally advantageous · to our people,

- You have my permission to use this as you wish in the Senate to gain national prohibition for our people and make our country a better place in which to live. Trusting that these statistics will help you in your fight, I remain, Sincerely, yours, T. A. MURRY, Chief of Police.

Per S.M. ·

CHETOPA .. KANS., January 10, 1911.

H. THOMPSON,

Washington, D. a.

MY DEAR SE)lATOR: In response to your letter of the 1st of this month regarding prohibition.

This IE'tter would have been answered before, but owing to my absence from the city this delay was caused.

I came to Chetopa shortly after Kansas became a prohibition State and I am convinced that prohibition is the proper method of reducing crime~, and .also aids very materially in providing better homes and better families ; and I am not classed among the strict prohibition people, either, although I am now serving my tenth year as mayor of ~~~s 1 ,r;~hibition city, and I believe absolutely in the enforcement of In connection with this I would like to suggest to you to introduce a law restricting the Government from issuing Government licenses to sell liquor of any kind in any of the prohibition States Whenever that is accomplished we will not be bothered any longer with bootleggers. Would be glad to bear from you on this proposition. With kindest regards to you, I remain,

Truly, yours, SIG. LEHMAN, Mayor.

LEAVENWORTH COUNTY.

TOXGA)lOXIE, KANS.

W. H. THO!oJPSO~ Esq., · Washington, D. C.

DEAR Srn: I~ answer to your letter of the 30th December in regard to prohibition, I think' I can say that we have none or very little drunkenness in our town now. We are too near Kansas City M<?·• to do away with all drinking, but I know that there is far less drinking than Jf we had saloons. We certainly would not go back to the Wide-open saloon.

Yours, truly, J. H. DREISBACH, Mayor.

OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY

Leavenworth, Kans., January G,' 1911.

Hon. W. H. THOMPSON, Washington, D. a.

MY DEAR SEN TOR: I am just in receipt of yom-' letter of the 3d instant asking for a statement giving my experience and observation as to whether prohibition in Kansas is a failure, or actually prohibits. thereby lessening drunkenness and crime and resulting morally and economically advantageous to the people of Kansas.

I desire to ssy emphatically ' that prohibition in Kansas has not been , a failure. Because of the fact that - Kansas borders on the wet State of Missouri tJ;le enforcement of the prohibitory law in the border counties is very difficult and quite expensive, and yet there are hundreds of young men m those counties who have never been in a saloon and many others who have never been in a saloon except when they' went across the river into Missouri.

The saloons and liquor houses in the cities adjoining Kansas and which cluster along the border on the Missouri side are a great curse to the people of Kansas. and except for them the enf<ircement of the prohibitory law in this State would l.le comparatively easy.

Every honest self-respecting citizE'n of the great State of Missouri ought to blush and hide his face in shame at the obstacles placed in the way of the enforcement of the prohibitory law in Kansas by the law-defying rum sellers of Missouri, who persist in sending liquor in to Kansas to be sold in violation of law. · .

Of course, there are violations of the prohibitory law in Kansas and will continue to be until Missouri wipes out her disgrace by barring intoxicating liquor from the State.

Notwithstanding all- ->f the difficulties of enforcement, I am confident that there IS not on the stat.ute books of the State another law or dozen jaws which have, and will continue to have, such beneficial l'e­ sults to our people, both economically and morally as the prohibitory liquor laws. The sentiment in favor of prohibition 'is growing stronger all the time. The drunkard is a disgrace and the rum seller is an outlaw in Kansas.

If there is anything in this letter which will be of any help to you, you are at liberty to use 1t as you see fit. ·

Yours, very respectfully,

C. P. RUTHERFORD,

City Attorney.

I.LNCOLN COUNTY. ‘

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY OF LINCOLN CEXTEll,

. Lincoln, Katzp., Januar·y 6, 1911. lion. WILLIAll H. THOMPSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. a. DEAR SENATOR: In reply to yours of the 2d instant, will say that prohibition has prohibited in this city for the last 15 years. That is as long as I have resided here. Also in the county.

Yours, truly,

C. H. BERRY, Police Judge.

Ll. ' ~ COUXTY.

OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY,

Mound ouv: Kans., January !!, 1911.

Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Washington, D. 0.

DEAR SENATOR : Gladly do I give my experience, observation and views upon the prohibition question in Kansas, and you are at liberty to use the same rn any way advantageous to the cause.

All laws to be effective must be backed by public sentiment. Unde.r prohibition in Kansas we have raised up a generation of men and women who are radically opposed to the use of intoxicating liquors and intoxication. I was . elected in 1914 on a law-enforcement platform, carrying every preci.nct in the county, and in 1916 was reelected without opposition on either ticket, and this after , two years of rigid enforcement of the prohibitory · liquor law. This I believe is proof conclusive that the sentiment in Linn County is against bootlegging, drinking, and drunkenness. Furthermore, I find the prohibitory law the easiest law on the statute book · to enforce. ' · -

Does prohibition , prohibit?

During the holidays just passed, in an entire county - of over 15;000 inhabitants only two cases of drunkenness were reported. ' There • is not enough liquor delivered in Linn County to make a good business for one saloon ; in wet States the small towns have nearly as many saloons as groceries. If that were the case here we would have ' 37 saloons.

A drunk is so scarce as to be a curiosity ; half the · youth · of Linn County never have seen a drunken man and few, indeed, who ever saw a - drunk woman.

If the Members of Congress, especially those from wet States, could step into the hundreds of happy, prosperous homes of Linn County, Kans., and ascertain the small quantity of liquors consumed there, and then go to the few unhappy, wretched, poverty-stricken homes where much of the earnings of the family are spent with some liquor dealer in Kansas City, Mo., it would be proof sufficient that Kansas prohibition was a -success ; but in order to .make it complete we need to make Missouri dry and stop Uncle Sam from bootlegging liquor into our dry State.

Here is hoping that you and your fellow workers will keep up your worthy fight until you smoke out the opposition a . nd hold them up to the Tidicule of the world ; after that they will not bold - out long, but will give us national prohibition, which will be the greatest achievement in the United States since the emancipation of the slaves.

Yours, truly,

'1IARRY W. 'FISHER, County Attorney. PLEASANTON, KANS., January '1, 19r7. WM. H. THOMPSON, :

United 'States Senate.

Ho ORADLE Sir: Your letter received inquiring in regard to the effec­ _ tiveness of the Kansas prohibitory law.

The young people - of Kansas do not know what it is to have whisky • and beer . flaunted in their faces from a saloon, and the only whisky · that enter& the State is via the express companies, which the United States Government forces us to allow, or that · which is packed in by Hon. WILLIAM individuals who are addicted to the habits or wishes to bootleg for the profit they receive.

Pleasanton ; · the town which I have the honor to serve, with a population of over fifteen hundred, has not had occasion to cause the arrest of a single individual in nine months. We have had th.ree convictions in nearly two years, and two of . these were for packing whisky in from Missouri and one was drunkenness. ·

The whisky and beer that comes into Pleasanton via the express companies is consumed in private, but being an officer I have the privilege of knowing who get it, and I find that the only people, as a rule, who are hard to collect rentals from (I am manager of a telephone company) are those who receive the shipments, and practically the only criminals who have been convicted in this vicinity are those who are addicted to its use.