July 31, 1917

Senator W-ILLIAM H. THOMPSON, -·~,:· ~. Washington, D. 0. · ;· .• 11• Dear Sm: In . regard to your favor of the 3oth ultimo, this is some· what of a broad question to answer, as my county has been against a wet State; but my experience in regard to crimes caused by the influence of drunkenness I have had none. ·

I can say that prohibition in this- county is a success as far as•I know in regard to the duties of this office. and I am safe to say that when Nebraska's dry law takes effect that the duties of my brother officer)\) along the State line will be somewhat lessened.

Yours, respectfully,

D. W. McLEOD, Sheriff.

WILSON COUNTY.

FREDONIA, KANS.~ January 6, 1917.

Hon. W. H. THOMPSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. 0

DEAR Sm: Your favor of January 3 to hand and .contents noted. ··' You ask the old question, Does prohibition prohibit?" I will answer by saying that the effects of prohibition is plainly apparent on every hand to every unbiased observer, making more happy homes. a better and cleaner citizenship.

Therefore, I don ' t consider prohibition in Kansas a failur.e by any means; while the accursed stuff slips in through the machinations of the whisky ring, yet there is but a very few that use it at all, and I consider prohibition is lessening drunkenness and crime, and is resulting morally and ' economically advantageous to our State and people, and I will say, in God's name, let the good work go on.

If you find any use for this letter in your fight, you have my per· ' t mission tQ. use it. .:1",. ~ ·

Sincerely, you~. P. H. l\1ATTHEWS,

Police Judge, Fredonia, Kans.

THE CITY HA,LL,

Fredonia, Kans., January 6, 1917.

Hon. Wm. H. THOliiPSON,

Senate, Washington, D. 0.

My DEAR SEN.ATOR : I um in receipt of · yo.ur letter asking for ~Y experience and observation regarding the prohibition question m Kansas. I am a native of Mi souri, but have lived in Kansas for over 36 years, and anyone who says that prohibition in Kansas is a failure . must be either dishonest, drunk, or a fool. There is not as much misery and crime caused by drunkenness in the entire S.tate of Kansas as there is in one of the larger cities of Missouri. · We have a J :. few cases of chronic drunkenness and a small amount of bootlegging; - ~ . .. but , taken altogether, it is not a drop in the bucket as · compared with a State where the open saloon is allowed.

You ·are at' liberty to use this letter wherever necessary and can -rest assured that the good people of · Kansas are with you in the fight you are making to protect the good name of our State and . to keep her in the prohibition and Democratic columns where she and all other good States rightfully belong.

Very truly; yours,

J. W. Moss, Mayor.

- WOODSON COUNTY.

CouNciL CHAMBER,

Yates Center, Kans., January 4, 1911.

Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, -~ . .- _... ,,.._ Washington, D. 0.

DEAn SIR: Your letter 30th ultimo asking my opinion regarding the operation of the prohibition law tn this State is received. I am very glad to give you my opinion formed from a careful observation of the workings of the law in this State, and, having been raised as a boy in the State of Missouri during the time the State had open saloons, I hav e had the opportunity of observing the workings of both systems. .. . I am strong for - prohibition, and I believe it is a success to such a degree there is no comparison between it and an open-saloon proposition, and it seems ' to me there should be no question in the mind of a fairminded man as to prohibition being a benefit to an{ community. I .,:•·. feel it is to our community, and in that I feel that voice the sentiment of a large majority of our citizens. ·

·:. In making the above statement I wish ' to state further that the enforcement of the prohibitory law is not all . that we should like to have ,. - .. ; ... 1; it. But this arises from obstacles more without the State than within ' the State. The . protection the United States Government gives a man · for shipping liquor for private use into the State, coupled with the fact we are adjacent to a State like Missouri wit considerable wet territory, makes it difficult to keep liquor entirely out of this State. It it were so no man could transport liquor into ' this State even for private use I see no reason why · the law would not be a total success and the State far better off. I am sure that . crime - poverty, ana drunke:mess in this State are considerably less than it we baa open saloons, and very few people I have ever talked to would consider for a · moment going to open saloons. Many a child in Kansas never saw a .... saloon and don t know what they look like. Many never saw or tasted of liquor, and if the Nation was dry in a few years it would be 1m­ possible to ~d a single person that ever saw a saloon. This leads me to the firm belief that our Nation ought to ~e a dry Nation, and I believe the greatest piece of legislation our Congress could pass would be the submission of an amendment for prohibition as I understand national prohibition has to come through a constitutional amendment. 1. Being a Democrat I am anxious that this privilege be given the people or.._ thrC\ugh a Democratic Congress and President, for I believe 1t will be . . the greatest blessing this Nation ever had. • ~-- .. · Assuring you of my best regards and bespeaking your support of ".., . any measure that will tend to give national prohibition or local, I ... :;: . remain, . . Very truly, yours, L. R. WALL~CEl, Mayor,

WYANDOTTE COUNTY.

DISTRICT COURT, WYANDOTTE COUNTY, Division No. 3,

Kansa,s City, Kans., January 5, 1911.

lion. WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, • , Washington, D. a.

DEAR SENATOR : Beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of 80th ultimo, m ' making inquiries concerning my observations as to results of prohibition in Kansas.

Prior to about 1905 conditions were bad in all border counties and the larger counties of the State. Our city, as well as other large cities of the State, was practically licensing saloons. The fight began in about 1905 or a little earlier, which resulted in the annihilation of the protected liquor traffic.

When I first started to investigate the situation I found that most of the recent legal battles bad taken place in local-option States. This went io show, to my mind, that the cry of tlle liquor interests to the effect that " high license " and local option were the proper . methods in which to handle the situation was insincere. It showed that their position was not to respect any law.

At the time the final fight started here in 1905 in this county of Wyandotte there were approximately 100 recognized joints. At this • writing no man can locate a place of any kind where liquor is being sold regularly. I mean by this that, while we have daily trouble with Mis . Missouri liquor, the only sales made locally are sales made by wagons from Missouri, bootleggers, and mushroom " blind tigers" that spring np here and there tn residences, outbuildings, and the like, suppHPd generally with a single keg of beer or a few quarts of whisky ; but the proprietors, when their business becomes too public, either quit and run away or are raidPd within a few hours after they commence business.

When the final battle began a committee of 15 representative buSines s men. consisting of bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and others, waitl'd upon me, as assistant attorney general, and requested that I im­ . medint e ly resign for the reason that business would be ruined by closing the joints. Every one of those men have frankly stated since that time in the public press that the elimination of the traffic in liquor was the best thing that ever happened to this locality. They testified to increased savings, increased efficiency of laborers, to prompt payment of rents, fewer suits for possession of houses. . Merchants reported collections easier. No one knows better than our friend TAGGART, now in the House-of Representatives, who was formerly our county attorney, that there was a marked diminution of crime, and it has continued to . , ' dimj Dish since. ' At the. time mentioned, 1905, and prior thereto, It was a common occurrence to have 10 or 15 laborers in police court every Monday morning with the same story: Entered a joint Saturday evening to · get a check cashed; got drunk; lost all money; kicked out and picked up by police; destitute family. That has all vanished now.

Another point I have · not mentioned was the fact that the brewers · marl£' a great cry about vacant buildings in the town when they' were driv e n out. It was but a short time until legitimate business filled all buildings v,acated by the liquor traffic, and conditions never were better in the rental of business properties than to-day. On this you might get the opinion of Mr. Willard Merriam, who has the largest real estate and rental business in the State. •

We appreciate your efforts to maintain the standing of Kansas as a clean, law-abiding State. Stand pat. The records bear you out.

Respectfully, yours, ·

W11i. H. MCCAMISH,

Distr-ict Judge. · P. S.: Let me add another word: We have a generation of young men and young women in Kansas but few of whom have ever tasted liquor or have seen a drunken man. Were it not for our wet neighbors abutting us at the State lines none of this generation in Kansas would have any ocular proof · of conditions in wet States. I have a daughter of • 19 and a son of 13 neither of whom has seen a drunkard, except those whose irregular trail was leading directly from the State . line, and these are very few in the daylight hours.

While running for office recently I was introduced to a Belgian. lie said that he had heard I was a prohibition crank, but that be intended to vote for me because be bad lived until recently in Missouri but believed in law enforcement. He is a young manJ,a good mechanic, and a successful contractor, but while living in .Missouri got drunk so frequently that be squandered his income and humiliated his family. Since he has lived in Kansas be has accumulated about $2,000, which he has in the bank ; owns his home, and his children are in school ; his family are . surrounded by comforts before · unknown and are happy. He says you could not induce him to reside in a wet State. Yet be still likes his liquor.

I could go on indefinitely reciting instances of men and women, too, who give like testimony. I have in mind an old German lady who says until law enforcement .id Kansas her husband, a stone mason, never came home with his entire wages. Always got drunk unless she could go and get his wages.

There is no question about the fact that we are rid of the traffic and its attendant evils-slot machines, wine rooms, gambling, and fences for encouragement of crime, excepting as we get the overflow from Missouri. If Missouri, or Jackson County even, were dry, it would leave us with no problem to contend with along these lines. You can • bet your money on that proposition.

The records will show that, while we have our liquor problem still with us, it is from without ' atld not within our city.

You are at liberty to use this as you see fit.

Yours, WM. H. M:cC.

SHERIFF;'S 01fFICE, · COUNTY OF WYANDOTTE,

Kansas City, Kans., January G, 1917. W. H. THOMPSON,

United States Senate, Washington, D. a.

DEAR SENATOR : I think it my duty to write you this letter and asrJist you in defending the name of Kansas in the noble - fight - she has made for prohibition-and Kansas has won the fight too. , There was a time in Kansas when prohibition did not.problbit, but the day is gone never to return. Whisky has been the downfall of millions of good _ people. The saloo'ns we~ closed in Kansas City, Kans., • ·· "' about 10 years ago. Kansas City; Kans., has prospered ever since : business rents commenced to increase when · the saloons were closed here; there are no vacant _ business houses in Kansas City, Kans., and have not been since the saloons were closed, excepting some building that - was erected In the resident district by brewery companies for Ule purpose of selling liquor in; at tbi!l time most of them are occupied.

I am satisfied if the records at ' the State prison were investigated they would :;.how that more prisoners were sent . there from Wyandotte County · when liquor was sold here than since the sale of it was stopped, notwithstanding the population of our county has doubled in that time, and the number of prisoners !n the county jail have decreased 100 per cent. The employment given and goods consumed by the breweries in mali:- . . ing intoxicants would fade into insignificance as compared to .the em- · · •"" . ployment and goods consumed if there was not any intoxicating liquors ·. •' made or sold in the United States. • · • ·

Is it better for a man to . go home to his family with his- stomach full of whisky and his brain on fire, with no money in his pockets, anll his wife and children hiding from him, or for the same man to go home with a clear brain, with his arms full of . groceries and shoes, with a smile on his face. and a happy family . ily to meet him? These are the two ways, the former with whisky, the-latter w:Hh groceries and .shoes.

Yours, truly,

• · R. L. HINCH, Sheriff. Now, if prohibition has been such a bad tHing · for Kansas, as claimed by the opposition, how could we get 100 honorable men charged with official responsibility, located in every section of the State, to write such letters as these? I will say that in all the responses there was not a single discordant no.te and not a word or a line tending in any way to justify the argument of the opposition. When it comes to actual practice, there is not a single argument against prohibition that can be . substantiated by facts. ·

If prohibition has been such a bad thing, why is it that the sentiment for it has been growing so rapidly until now it extends everywhere? Things which are . a detriment to society ani humanity soon die out rather than extend to other communities. . Although in the beginning Kansas stood a.s the one great oasis in the old American desert, why is it now that on three sidesin · Oklahoma, Colorado, and · Nebraska-the people have adopted the same identical law, and even in Missouri · wherever the border counties touch Kansas, except those containing . large cities, every county and city is dry under the local-option law of that State, and the whole State at the last election, except for the county of St. Louis alone, would have adopted complete prohibitton?

These letters answer every argument that has ever been made against prohibition in Kansas. They show that the farther you get out into the State and away from wet territory, drinking and drunkenness and other crimes have grown less and less, and our- happiness and prosperity greater and greater. They show that the only difficulty we lln:ve ever lurd with the enforcement of'the law has been in preventing shipments from outside wet territory. This has been the experience of all dry com- munities. It is the difficulty experienced tly the dry counties of Missouri and other States under the local-option laws. The ev only thing, therefore, that has · interfered: with the complete sas, operation of tl1e law, and the best effects therefrom, has been. the liquor in wet localities, which all points conclusively to the more reui remedy wbiclr is to prevent the manufacture and · sale of are intoxicating liquor · everywhere. · .

Let us therefore adopt this amendment. Do this, Senators, her' amt we- will have taken IDe greatest step forward fn the betterment of our dtizensW13 · that has been taken at any one · tiin~ since the foundation of the Government. E>o this- and we will have · wiped away from the women and little children . more. hedy. tears, blood, and · suffering than any other step · that it would · be poss-ible t.o take · at tbfs time. Do this and we wiU have con- this tribute<l more to the final success and victory- in the · present cruel war than: any other · one action _ we can take, and will tills thereby · greatly benefit not only the people of this country but the people of the · entire world.

Mr. THOMPSON subsequently said:

I ask permission that eert:l · in letters to · which I referred ih of my address this afternoon be made · :n part of. my remarks.

The PRESlDL~G OFFICER. Without objection, , the request of the Senn tor from Kansas will be granted.

l\1r~ THOMPSON. Also, instead of the clipping - from the · Kansas C.ity S11fir. wJ1kh · was objected to. I ask permission . to from refer to a clipping from the Kansas•City Post of June 19, 1917, concerning the same matter. . It has already been , printed in Utah. , the RECORD, at page 4534, proceedings ot the · Ho~; RE<mRD of . June 29, and I ask that the portions thereof concerning the tile bringing of suit. by l\lr.. Conwell be- made a part of" my · r . remarks,

Tile PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objecti-on, it · will ~ be so ordered.

l\1r. HARDING. Mr. President, I desire to offer :om amend- ment to the pending joint resolution, w.Itictl l desire ID!13t 1>-e. reu!l, printed. and Li~ on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. T11e · amendment sul mitted' , br tile Senator from Ohio will be' stat.e.d by- t:he · ~cretary- .

Tile : SECRETARY. It is proposed to insert a: new section, to be hiS known us: section Z, and to . rea!l as . follows: - : ·

Sec. 2 . This , ar . article shall be inoperative - unless it shalt have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of theseveral States, as provided · in tbc. Constitution, on 01~ before the Ist day of July, . :y., A. D . . 1 9 2 3.

l\Ir. SMOOT. 1\fr. President, in . order · that . there .: may : Be : no tm: · from Kansas bns • said~ mistake, l move that the portion of tlie ' remarks' or tfJ.e Senator from Kansas fl\lr. THompson] just made that reflected · in any. way upon a Member of this- body m· a Member. of the- · otlleJ: House of Congress be expunged from the REeORD.

Mr. NORRIS. Who is going to decide · as to : that? '

l\fr. SMOOT. The Senator from ~ Nebraska ask£ me : wlto is going ta decide. l will lea-ve it to tfie Senator · from Kansas to · now? : decide, and if, when the matter · has · been printed in tlie RECORD, it appears that there are remarks that other Senators- think are reflections upon Members or either body, then the.y carr move to the expunge those particular parts of the r.ema.rks at a later day:

The PRESID.foNG 0FFIC.ElR. The Chair understands that acy the Senator from Utah does not press · the motion now?

1\lr. SMOOT. Yes . ;- I do.

Mr. STONE. 1\Ir. President——

Ttie PRESIDING · OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri The PltESIDING · OFFICER. will pardon the Chair f-or - a moment. T11e · Chair understood ' does. that tlle Senator from Utah did not desire to · press · W ruotiore

Mr. SMOOT. I made the motion, and I want - the question Mrr. THDMPSON. put upon it now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair begs tlie Senator's pardon. The Chair understood the Senator to have . withdrawn to the motion.

. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, 1 desire the Senator from · Utah to wait until the senior Senator from Kansas returns to the Chamber.

Mr. THOMPSON entered the Chamber.

l\Ir. CURTIS. I notice the senior Senator f-rom Kansas Ims of 11ow returned to the Chamber.

1\ir. Sl\IOOT. I will now repeat my mot i on, in order that there may be no question about the Senator from Kansas the: understanding \vbat it is. I have move(), I will say to · the: senior Senator from Kansas, that nH: portions on · the remarks just made by him reflecting upon any Member. of this body or in o · . the other House be expunged uom the REconn ; and :r will leave tl1e question Hf< t-o what should be expunged to the Sena- tor from Kansas himself.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I have no objection to that, but I do think the rules were more rigorously enforced against the Senator from Kansas than they have ever been enforced. against any other . et: Senator since I have been in the Senate, or was against the . Senator from Utah, who has used even harsher language to-day than has the Senator from Kanrelative to the.- other House. It is not, however, my inp tention to reflect upon any Representative or upon . any Senator than. simply to show: their particular official arts, which. matters of record, and I do not . desire . a to say anything aS J a conclusion . the.r.efrom whi.ch would , reflect upon · sua . lk Memhonor or integrity.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President. I think the Senator from Kansas is mistaken iiL the statement than the · rule · has been 1 applied _ to blln , more ~ strictly · than to other · Senators in this , !.fi·. THOMPSON. l hav.e been . here about five • years, nnw is the first time I have ever seen the ' rule. so applied.

Mr SMOOT . . L have seen · the . rule applied " t:u : Members of body, and the Senator offending has been · ordered. by the Chair to take his seat. Certainly that was not enforced against the Senator from Kansas to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is- on the motion the Senator from Utah [Mr. S:lWOT].

lli. GRONNA. Mr. President, . I: was ~ unable ta . he ~ in the Senate and to hear all of the discussion by the · Senator fr-om ~ Kansas, , but I certainly do . not care - to • vote fu1: a n10tton as to wbicli t know: nothing. It it is not agreeable: to . the. · Senator Kansas to let portions of his- · r.emar.ks b& expunged, I. shall certainly not vote for t-he motion of the Senator from , Ml.·. THOMPSON. 1\lJ.·. President, L simP.lY desire oo . say to . Senator . --

The . PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the- - SenatOr · from North t Dakota. yield . to _ the . Senator from Kansas-? .

1't.fi" .. GRONNA. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I simply de.sire to say t;o . fue , Senator from ~ No.r.th. Dakota . timt all in 1 the- world . that the Senator. koiUI Kansas did . was w:Jm~ . has. been . done here • every d::t«t .n called attention to tlle alrtioll.t of ' a Representati;ve - in tlle · other House . introducing : into - the RECORD, . under the . pretense of extending! remarks, . a reflection : against the- people · of K.ansas: and t11~ operations ot · the pr . obibitory , lnw. in · par~ticulm . ·: .

:1\r r. GRONNA:.. l do , not tllink the - Senator · fr:om 1 Kansas · understood , me. ' ' V.hat I: meant to sa~ was that. . unless it iS agreeable to the Senator fbom Kmnsas, , I- am , unwilling · t01 vote . f.'011 the motion- · to , e~unge from 1 the,. RE~OIW ; aiJY.ilbing: the . SenaMr. THOl\fi'SON: W.ith . the: statement that it be · left to • the S.Rnator · fnam Kansas; lam . ner.f~tly, satisfied! .

1\:fr. STONE: . lli: , President. a ; narliumentary inq_uir~~ • .

The PRESIDING OER'ICER. . 'L'he · SeDJttor · from 1\fipsonri - will state his parlia.mentar:y · inquicy.

1\Tr. &TONE.. The vactiamenta:cy. inquir,y- is, what- ia o J!endi.ng'"

The PRESIDING , QFF1ICER. The Senatmr from . liJtab. [Mr. S")fooTJ I1as moved to expunge from the RECORD any portion q:f . remarks made by the Senator from Kansas [_Mr. TBOMP· : S'<h ] ilia( re1le:cted 1 uoon. any Member of: the Senate.- or . ugon. M~mben oft the · Rouse; , "tJi2 . matteD · to- be • le:fib to ) the 1 Senator :mom Kansas.

1\f'r: STONE: Does the : motion leave · it to the · Senator from Kansas T Tlie Chair. understa.ads it.

Mr. STONE. Then what is the need of debating it! It expect to d~ that: in any · event, if the . Senator from Missouri pleases.

lli. OVERMAN. Ml:. President, in justice - to myself . I desire say that I came into the Chamber and heard , the · Senator, as I thought, attacking some Member of the House of Representatives; I do · not knmv; who he is and can not now recall . his. name. 'ITile ; Senator. : says = this is : the- first time that · this rule has been invoked. I have h~ar·d it frequently invoked, but I'" have not for a long: time heard · a Senator reflect on · a Member the House ofJ Representatives. Itris a dangerous thing to · do, for · the r.eason than if w.e do · not preserve our dignity in that respect and keep the rules, what is. there to keep Members of · House · o:fi Representatives from attacking Members of M1is body? . The . tu1e • to ; which : IJ have referred ' applies both to the House · ami to thl'r Senate, and I simply called attention to ill order, us i thought, to protect the Senator from Kansas, and. suggested. that, although he • might bm·e · just cause for so reflect- • ing, this was not the place to reflect on a · Member of t11 • e- other · Bouse.

The PRESIDING OFF.?ICER . . Th e que s tion is on the motion of the Senator from Utah. . . .

l\Ir. SHAFROTH. l\Ir. Pre s ident, before that motion is put, I should . like to state that I do•not see why there should be such a motion made when the Senator from Kansas has stated that he expects to expunge from the letters and from his remarks any reflections which may have been made. The motion which has been made is going to leave it to him in any event, and I do not see why, when he has stated that he would take such action, that" it is necessary that any motion at all should be made under the rule which has been cited. · l\Ir. SMOOT. Mr. President, I withdraw the motion. The Senator from Kansas was out of the Chamber at the time I made the ' motion. I did not · want the occasion to pass without action at the time; but now that the Senator from Kansas has stated that he will expunge tlle objectionable matter, I am perfectly willing to withdraw and do withdraw the motion, with the understanding that the Sen · Senator from Kansas will do just as he has said he will do.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. . The motion . of the Senator from Utah is withdrawn.

Mr. STONE . obtained the floor.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, my colleague [Mr. REED] desires to make some observations, and for that purpose I yield the floor to him.

-The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Missouri "[l\1r. REED] is recognized.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would not take a moment of the time of the Senate to reply to anything said by the Senator from Kansas but for the fact that he has repeated with some deliberation a statement that was sent over his State at the time of a little colloquy which took place about the 19th of December. That colloquy originated ~ d in an innocent inquiry which I propounded to the Senator with reference to conditions in Kansas City, Kans. I did not expect it to provoke any discussion, because I thought I would elicit a frank statement from the Senator from Kansas in the way of an admission concerning the matters about which I inquired, for it seemed to me that there could be no reasonable dispute about them. However that may be, and passing it by as wholly immaterial at this time, I call the attention _ n of the Senator from Kansas to the fact that he has to-day repeated the statement that was sent throughout the State of Kansas that I charged that at present, or on the 19th day of December, 1916, "there were more drunkards to the square acre in Kansas than in any place ever was."

It is well understood that newspaper accounts when they are passed by the reporter who takes them in the Senate to the tele- 1 graph editor, and then may be edited and reedited a dozen times !before they finally get into print, may display some inaccuracies, and such inaccuracies are therefore pardonable; but it is hardly pardonable that the Senator from Kansas should in the · Senate , repeat that statement which is absolutely inaccurate.

All that the Senator from Kansas had to do was to turn to the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD to see what I did say, and he must have turned to the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD in order to get my language, and if he did turn to the CoNGRESSIONAL order to get my language this is what he read. 1 read from page 540:

I do not know what effect the prohibitory law may have had in Kansas as a whole, but I want to say to the Senator that no man can candidly dairu that there was any real enforcement of that prohibitory law for many, many years after it was passed. I remember a good many years ago trying a case in a court, which was presided over by the Senator's distinguished father, I think, in a small town in Kansas. I had not named the tovm yet. The Senator from Kansas 'Said-and I read from the RECORD :

Mr. THOMPSON. Hiawatha.

Mr. REED. At Hiawatha. It seemed to me that there was not a lawyer fit the bar who was not a common drunkard, and they had prohibition ' there. but 1t did not prohibit.

Mr: THOMPSON. M.r. President--

The l'RI!lSID I NG OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Sen a tor from Kansas ?

Mr. REED. Yes.

· Mr. THompson. The Senator will acquit me of that. He knows I had not be e n admitted to the bar at that time. That was in 1891, when I first became acquainted with the Senator from Missouri, and we have been good friends ever since.

I pause here to interrupt the thiead of · what I was discussing to remark that it was somewhat remarkable that the Senator from Kansas at that time and place did not deny my statement with reference to the condition of the bar of the court of his own town where he lived; but, instead of decl a ring that ~Y statement was a base slander, he asked me to please exclude him from the list of the bar, and pleaded his OWJl immunity upon the ground that he was then so young that he had not . been admitted to the practice--! mean the practice of the profession, not the practice of the bar.

Sin c e this remark made in the heat of debate has been passed around, and because I would not do injustice to any set of men, let me say that I did not say that all of the bar were drunkards, but I said it seemed to me they were drunkards. I was sorry after that--

1\.fr. THOMPSON. - If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him, that is the language I used to-day.

Mr. REED. Yes; but I am coming to the Senator's other language. I was sorry, after stating it, that I had made the statement, because, no matter what the habits were of the members of the bar there in that little town over 2o-1 think 25-years ago, I ought to have forgotten and let them pass into , sw·-eet oblivion covering them with the dust of forgetfulness, and I am willing to let the statement rest there so far as the conditions of the Hiawatha bar were concerned.

I pass on now to the matter that I rose to speak about. What I have read is preliminary; and notice I was referring to a condition that prevailed 26 or 27 years ago. Following what I have just read, I continued:

Mr. REED. The Senator was not at that time a lawyer, and I am stating this to cast no aspersions upon the Senator ' s State or town. I had a good deal of bu s iness for a good many years in Kan as, and I say now, without desiring to reflect upon the Senator's State, that there were more drunkards to the square acre 1n Kansas than in any place I ever was, and that, too, under a prohibitory law.

To what time was I referring, Senator THOMPSON-to the 19th day of December or to years before? But I read on :

.Mr. THOMPSON. Would the Senator object to stating how many years ago that was ?

The PRESIDlNG OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the :Senator from Kansas? •

Mr. REED. My travels back and forth there-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to yield.

Mr. REED. Oh, no · I yield.

Mr. THOMPSON. The time to which the Senator refers was 25 years ago, was 1t not?

Mr. REED. Oh, no; not that far back. Formerly I frequently had legal business in the State of Kansas.

Then · there was an interruption-

Mr. OWEN. May I suggest-- -

Mr. REED. I will ask the Senator to wait until I have concluded this sentence. That business dropped off very largely something like 12 or 15 years ago, and I have not been there very much since. I am going to state this case fairly b~ore I get through, so that I do not think the :Senator from Kansas .·an object to it; but the facts ought to be stat e d. Did the Senator from Oklahoma desire to ask me something 1 Mr. OwEN. I mer e ly desired to remove the doubt as to whether the period referred to by the Senator from Kansas, when the Senator from M..lssouri was practicing law in .Kansas, was 45 years ago or 55 years

Mr. REED. Well, hardly that long ago. It was about the period when the :Senator from Oklahoma was rising to national fame; and I presume that is not more than 20 years back .

Mr. President, the whole of the context and the whole of the statement makes it plain, so plain that the fool, though a wayfaring man, could J1ot err therein, if he would pau e to read it, that I was talking about a condition that existed in the State . of Kansas many years back.

Furthermore, later on in my remarks I said that the law . was being much better enforced in the State of Kansas. What I RECORD in was saying with reference to the State of Kansas was largely in reply to attacks that were made upon my own State. So that when the Senator circulates the speech which he made this afternoon in his campaign, which I take it is the purpose for which his speech was made, I want him to put into that ~ speech simply the fact that the statement I made with reference to the condition as to drunkenness in the State of Kansas relate d to a time many years ago. I want him to say that I further said, speaking of the condition of the joints-and the Senator will find the language at page 5'W of the RECORD of D e cember 19, in the left-hand column, near the bottom-now, I w a s speaking of Kansas City, Kans., and of the fact that the joints and the gambling houses had been driven there from the State 6f Missouri and had there taken refuge. I said this:

Mr. REED. Until about five or s ix year s ago, or perhaps s e v e n years ago, they had innumerable whisky and beer joints in K ans a s City, Kans.

Will the Senator from Kansas on his honor deny it? I pause · e for a reply. · ·

I continue:

They openly defied the law in the city of L e av e nw ot·tb. Th e hotel bars and saloons were as open there as tb e y wet· c in tb State o f Missouri-

Will the Senator from Kansas deny that fact? I pam; long enough for a reply- · and drunkenness was a very prevalent disease or h ab i t, or · whatever it is called. Five or six years back they elect e d n man a tto rn e y general of the State who undertook to enforce · ce the se lnw.. . li e b ad a desperate · time in accomplishing bls undertaking, but b e prosecuted the "joints." The open saloon. I think, he absolut e ly e t ·n<licatcl l . Fi n ally the law was so enforced that open gambling was sto p ped, and I t ll l nk t;hey have a very fair condition of public and priv at e mo r als in the State of Kansas; but they have as much drunkenness, in my opinion 1 in that State to-day as they have in the State of' Missouri, and l thinK a little more. •

And' upon that statement I unqualifiedly stand. So that ' t in­ this matter. stentl of saying that on the 19th day of December this condition existed in Kansas, I gave to Kansas the credit of having in recent years enforced her prohibitory law with reasonable success. .

.1.\Ir. THOMPSON. l\Ir. President, will the Senator permit me to interrupt him? .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iis­ ' souri yield to the Senator from Kansas?

1\fr. REED. I do.

1\Ir. TIIOl\IPSON. It has been longer than five or six years. I think the Senator from Missouri will admit that.

l\1r. REED. I do not think it has been longer with reference to Kansas City, Kans.--

1\Ir. THOMPSON. It has been something like 12 years.

l\.fr : REED. And I do not think it has been very much longer the hotel. with reference to Leavenworth. It is possible, however, in the flight of time, that I may be a year or two short on the exact time. The fact is, I have not missed my drinks in Kansas, aml have not been worried about the condition of dryness in that State; but I do know in a general way in regard to the conditions. Now, there is no use in keeping up a controversy forever, because if the Senator from Kansas were to stand here and talk forever he could not convince the people of llis own State that in Topeka, Kans., and in Leavenworth, Kans., and in Kansas City. Kans., for many years there was not open violation of the prohibitory law.

1\Ir. CURTIS. 1\:fr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from l\Iis- this matter. souri yield to the Senator from Kansas? · l\Ir. REED. In just a moment. Let me conclude my statement.

l\Ir. CURTIS. Certainly.

Mr. REED. Neither would any fair man state that at the present time, or for several years back, the effect of the prohibitory law had not been to curtail very greatly the open selling, at least, of liquor in the State of Kansas, and perhaps its consumption. I do not know what is sent in by private shipments. l\Ir. CURTIS. I want to state to the Senator that in the city of Topeka the open saloons were closed in February, 1885, and have not been open there since. I was the county attorney who closed the saloons in that city and kept them closed for the four years I was county attorney, and I have lived in that city ever since.

l\Ir. REED. Well, Mr. President, I really do not want to get into these personal disputes. but I happen to know that I went · to the city of · Topeka on some business, and I know that it was after the time that the Senator states, although I could not state tlle year, and I know that the hotel bar was running at that time.

Now, I did not visit the towns looking for saloons. I know, and the Senator from Kansas who now has the floor will certainly not deny the fact, that for many years in Kansas City, Kans., you had the open saloon, many years after the prohibitory law took effect . . ' ·

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, we might as well meet this question here as anywhere else, and fight it out to-day. I say to the Senator and I say to the country that in February, 1885- a ' and my recollection is that it was on the 14th day of Februarythe last open saloon was closed ' ed in the city of Topeka. I was county attorney, and enforced the law myself. It was the first t:irut=' · that the law had been enforced in that city.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for the admission. That is all I want-just that admission.

Mr. CURTIS. It was the first time, in 1885. They were kept closed for the four years that I was county attorney. I lived there and practiced law until I was elected to Congress in 1892, ancl have lived there ever since; and I state that while I was county attorney and while my successors were in office there was not an open saloon in that city. I will say that there were a few joints and some bootleggers up to five or six years · ngo.

l\fr. HEED. Will the Senator enlighten us as to when the prohibitory law was enacted?

l\1r. CURTIS. In 1881. · Mr. REED. And the Senator began to enforce it in 1885?

l\Ir. CURTIS. In the city of Topeka. ,

. Mr. REED. AnJ up to that time the law had never been en- . f orce< l in tht S~ate. the Senn tor just said. ·

.i\h·. U( RTIS. I clicl not say in the State; I sahl in that city. l\fr. HEED . Very well, I - thought the Senator said in the State of K ans ns.

1\Ir. CURTIS. I know nothing about the enforcement · of the law in different parts of the State.

l\Ir. REED. The Senator need not get at all · excited ' about

Mr. CURTIS. 1 am not excited. I want the Senator to know the · facts; that is all. · · ·

1\fr. REED. I am giving . his town a pretty clean l)m . of health. I had left Topeka and had gone to Kansas City, Kans., and the statement r · was making was in regard to Kansas City, Kans. ; but I notice now that the Senator from Kansas. and from Topeka, Kans., does not · claim that there were not plenty of joints in Topeka for ' many years after 1885. ·

Mr. CURTIS. Oh. I did not say there were plenty. I said there were a few joints and bootleggers there until a few years

Mr. REED. Yes. Now, that is all I ever said about your town of Topeka. · ·

1\Ir. CURTIS. The Senator said there was an open bar in

1\fr. REED. I said there was an open bar in the hotel, to my certain knowledge, on the occasion that I was there attend-. ing the Federal court. .

1\Ir. CURTIS. I do not think that can be correct, if the Senator was there since 1885. - ~ ·

Mr. REED. The Senator may not think so, but I know when I see a thing, and I saw many gentlemen patronizing it; but that is immaterial. Any man that would claim that Kansas was made absolutely dry by the prohibitory law would not be a frank man; and if there . was a condition of failure to enforce for many years, and if you have finally come to a . fair condition of enforcement, there ought to be no quarrel about But I was talking about Kansas City, Kans., a moment ago, when I was interrupted. It seems that the only difference between the Senator from Kansas [Mr. THOMPSON] and myself is that he thinks that was probably eight or nine years ago. I will let him have the benefit of that.

Mr. THOMPSON. l\Ir~ President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. THOl\.fPSON. The sheriff of the county states in his letter - that it was 12 years ago that they began the enforcement of the law. ·

Mr. REED. Oh, well, it was not 12 years ago. It is not that long ago. I live across the line. I know the conditions that existed. I read the newspapers. The Senator from Kansas himself produced here in the Senate a few months ago, at the time of or shortly after this colloquy. records from the courts showing where the attorney general had brought his injunction proceedings ; and, of course, he did not bring the injunction proceedings unless there was something to enjoin. Now; there is not any use trying to fudge on this matter. The truth is, you had a very poor enforcement of the prohibitory law ' for many years, and the truth now is that in the last few years you have bad a pretty fair enforcement. That is what I said before, and it is all here in this RECORD.

The only reason I rose, however. was to have the Senator, when he sends out his campaign · speech, put into the speech the fact that I was speaking of a time about 10 or 12 or . 20 years ago and not of recent times. If he will do that, I am content. I have no desire to say anything against the State of Kansas. It has many good people in it, and I said so in my speech. I think I said of and concerning Kansas as many pleasant things as the Senator has ever said. •

Now, there is one thing, since the Senator is so supersensitive, that I ask him to correct on his own account. On the 19th day of December, 1916, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. THOMPSON) said:

I ain glad to have the suggestion of the Senator from Oklahoma. When Missouri is included we shall all be satisfied.

That was in reply, and is merely thrown in for the context.

Mr. THOMPSON. What page is the Senator reading from?