Problem in Chicago. By PROFESSOR F. D. BRAMHALL, University of Chicago. This paper does not pretend to offer a solution of the liquor question in Chicago, nor of those important phases of it which are necessarily political. It does not even attempt to describe in detail the organization of the opposing forces and their ramifications, though that would be a study well worth the attention of the National Municipal League. It does try to present the main issues and organizations in the field from the point of view of those who have joined neither the prohibitionists nor the "personal liberty" forces, but who are nevertheless interested in making Chicago as wholesome and beautiful and free a place as possible for themselves to live in to-day, and a better place for their children to live in to-morrow. The writer believes that such persons do not find in the present formulation of the issues anything hopeful for the solution of the saloon problem; but that, on the contrary, the existence of the warfare on its present lines is to-day one of the most serious obstacles to the improvement of conditions in Chicago in any other direction. Sooner or later, and the sooner the better, the present uncompromising and irreconcilable demands of the two well-organized and determined armies must in the name of the progress of the city in decency and efficiency, be resolved. Illinois' To appreciate the issues and parties of to-day it is necessary to look back a moment. The State of Illinois, like other states, has had general Sunday laws since its early days; different only in that they made punishable, not Sunday labor and business in general, but only the annoyance of others by Sunday labor. There has also been, since at least 1826, a specific prohibition of the opening of tippling houses on Sunday. Before the fifties, there seems to have been no serious saloon question in Chicago. Under its charter power to regulate the sale of liquor and issue licenses, the city had provided that dram shops should be closed on Sunday. In the forties the immigration from New England, New York and Ohio had come, and had brought a somewhat stricter moral code than the earlier frontier village, composed principally of Kentuckians and Canadians, had had. About 1850, however, came the great change which still largely determines the form of the saloon question in Chicago: the sudden and tremendous growth of population, made up largely of foreign immigrants. The city administration was weak and crime and disorder increased with the population; the result was the complication of the question of law enforcement with the wholly irrational nativeAmerican movement, the election in 1855 of a "Know-nothing" mayor, a brief period of turbulence, followed by the election of an "easy" mayor and a return to practically the conditions before the outbreak. For the next sixteen years, which include the war time, the liquor question was in the background, and then. came prominently to the fore that phase of it which has caused constant and fruitless turmoil ever since, the Sunday question. The catastrophe of 1871 broke down party lines for the moment and brought about the election of a citizen's or "fire-proof" ticket headed by Joseph Medill, and pledged to a general reform of the administrative looseness which the fire had revealed. Mayor Medill undertook to enforce the Sunday closing ordinance with the almost complete wreck of his administration as a consequence. The ensuing campaign was fought practically on the single issue of Sunday closing, and the verdict was unmistakable. The new mayor in his inaugural used expressions which, with very slight change, might come from almost any of his successors to the present day: "It is a well-known fact that those ordinances, how much soever they may have been in consonance with the public opinion of a comparatively small and homogeneous population at the time of their enactment, have ceased to be so, since Chicago has by the harmonious co-operation of citizens belonging to different nationalities grown from a village to the rank of one of the greatest cities of the world. For a series of years it has been The Sunday the practice of our municipal administration to treat those ordinances as obsolete' and to refrain from enforcing them. It is not intended to denounce that practice, but merely to state that within the last year it has become listasteful to a large portion of the community." He then proceeded to recommend the repeal of the Sunday closing ordinance; and this was done on March 16, 1874, the council merely substituting the requirement that on Sunday front doors be kept closed and shutters drawn. This ordinance is still a part of the revised ordinances of Chicago. In regard to the legal effect of this action at the time and afterward, there has been considerable controversy, upon the merits of which it is not necessary for our purpose to pass judgment. Certainly it left no penalty imposed by the city itself for Sunday liquor selling; but the state law still, as it had since before 1826, forbade it and prescribed a punishment. The opponents of Sunday closing have maintained that the state law did not apply in a city under a special charter, as Chicago was, having authority to regulate liquor selling. However this may have been in 1874, the question was still further complicated in 1875 when Chicago abandoned its special charter and came under the general Cities and Villages Act. This act provided that ordinances not in conflict with state law should continue in force; and the opponents of Sunday closing assert that the ordinance of 1874 was not in conflict with state law at the time of passage nor at the time of the adoption of the act and therefore continued in force. I repeat that it is not necessary for our purpose to determine the correctness of this assertion, since, whether it be true or not, the opponents of Sunday closing would still be opponents of Sunday closing. It may be said, however, that the prominence of this legal argument is somewhat due to the Illinois provision that the jury is judge both of law and fact, and the desirability therefore of having a legal argument upon which juries may refuse to convict persons who sell liquor on Sunday. It is also an evidence that what Mayor Colvin said in 1873 is still true: that it is "distasteful to a large portion of the community" to feel that the Sunday privileges rest on a clear violation of law. From 1874 to 1904 there is no new feature significant for the present situation. The period was marked by the five adminis Chicago Law and trations of the elder Carter Harrison and the four of the younger, and whatever merits the two Carter Harrisons had, administrative efficiency and rigorous law enforcement were not among them. In the spring of 1904, however, a fight over the midnight closing ordinance brought into existence one of the vigorous and alert organizations now composing the anti-saloon army. That ordinance had not been regularly enforced, though there was no definite assurance, as in the case of the Sunday law, that it would not be; and in March, 1904, a German alderman introduced an ordinance for its repeal. I have been unable to find evidence as to whether he was supported extensively by the sentiment of the foreign populations, or mainly by liquor dealers. At any rate the proposal roused an immediate opposition from those who had been resolutely and actively insisting on an honest attempt to enforce not only this ordinance as it stood, but other saloon regulations, including the Sunday closing laws. They organized themselves as the Chicago Law and Order League. The result of their first struggle was a substantial victory, in the form of a compromise, the closing hour being extended only from 12 to 1 o'clock. The League, together with the Illinois Anti-Saloon League, organized in the summer of 1898 as a branch of the militant national organization, form the active forces in Chicago working for the restriction and abolition of saloons. Two years later there was organized on the other side probably the most powerful defensive organization which has appeared in any city in the country, and one which makes the Chicago situation unique: the United Societies for Local SelfGovernment. The circumstances of its origin must be briefly noticed. In the spring of 1906 a series of shocking events connected with allnight dances, in connection with which liquor was sold, attracted public attention and led to a grand jury investigation. In the course of it doubt was cast on the power of the mayor to issue “special bar permits " under par. 117 of the Revised Code, which for ten years or more had authorized the selling of liquor under such circumstances. These were one-night permits, without restriction of hours, issued usually for Saturday or Sunday night on application one or two days in advance and the payment of a nominal fee. Mayor Dunne, on being questioned by the grand jury, on the 1st of March agreed to issue no more such permits until the matter was settled. Instantly there was loud and vigorous protest from a large number of foreign societies, which had been accustomed to holding dances and festivals at which beer was served under these permits. Here it should definitely be pointed out that this protest came from an interest wholly distinct from that of the low dance halls in the "red light" district whose outrageous abuses had brought about the issue; and it should be added that it is most deplorable that neither the law-abiding part of the foreign societies nor the reformers whose indignation was absolutely righteous found any way to separate the two groups opposing the cutting off of special bar permits. The foreign societies thought they saw in the present movement an attempt of puritans to interfere in an irritating way with their established privileges and customs; they foresaw a general blue law" movement led by the same persons who were so uncompromisingly demanding Sunday closing and total prohibition. It need not be said that there were strong incentives for the brewers and liquor dealers to foster that fear and make the most of it; but the fear was there, and represented something other than the interests of lawlessness and debauchery, or the financial interests of the traffic. A great parade of all nationalities was organized as a display of strength, followed by a mass meeting in the First Regiment Armory, at which the rights of "personal liberty" were extolled, and united resistance against interference was urged. The work of organization was skilfully prosecuted, and by the middle of June was thoroughly completed, and the United Societies formally launched. At just about the same time the city council passed a new ordinance authorizing special bar permits practically in the form demanded by the new organization. Since that time the United Societies have fought the battle of the defensive interests. What, now, is the form of organization of the two sides, their program, and their method of action? The Attack I. The attack. The prohibition party may be dismissed with the statement that it represents a declaration of principles without any expectation of immediate |