The county is comprised of nine townships, Adams, Jackson, White River, Washington,
Noblesville, Wayne, Clay, Delaware, and Fall Creek. In the years just after the Civil
War its population was very homogeneous. In 1870 there were 23,247 people living in
the county, of whom only 391 were foreign born. Unusual for a rural dominated county
in Indiana, however, it could boast of an African-American population of 634, most
associated with the Roberts Settlement, a farming community of free Blacks founded
in the 1830s. The county seat of Noblesville was home to four churches within the
town limits, with an additional five nearby. Other towns of size were Cicero, Sheridan,
and Westfield.2
In the late 1800s there was a proliferation of temperance- minded groups
in the county and in the nation. Their desire was to be bipartisan and to reach out beyond
denominational lines.3
But their appeal in Hamilton County, as it was elsewhere, came to
reside increasingly within the Republican Party and in the Evangelical Protestant churches.
According to W.J. Rorabaugh, America has historically had a drinking problem. While many have refused to recognize this, churches often have. In frontier Indiana, Methodists played a key early role in the temperance movement. Their efforts, along with other denominations concerned about the amount of alcohol consumed in frontier Indiana, centered on regulation not outright eradication of drink. In 1855, temperance workers managed to pass a prohibition law for the state. But in the thrill of initial victory, the temperance organizations disbanded, thinking their work done. When the law was found unconstitutional, they were too disheartened to reform and try again. 4
And then suddenly, reformers had other issues to worry about, such as the Civil War. The churches, as well as the entire county, were "conspicuous during the War of the Rebellion for the fidelity of its citizens to the cause of the Union." The war cemented a religious divide that had begun in the 1830s and 1840s. Pietistic denominations, such as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers, tended to vote for the Republican Party, while liturgical denominations, such as Lutherans and Roman Catholics were more apt to vote for Democrats. 5
However, the temperance groups rebounded following the war to get the Baxter Liquor Law passed in 1873, which required saloons to have a license in order to sell alcohol. In the wake of Baxter, came the ribbon campaigns. Around 1877, reformed drinkers began wearing red ribbons. They were soon followed by the blue ribbons of the Murphy temperance people, who called on individuals to take an oath to stop drinking. The Murphy temperance pledge was quite popular around the state. Crawfordsville, Indiana alone had 2,612 persons sign it in the span of a few weeks during the winter of 1877-1878. Later in 1878 the movement would be responsible for the closing of two saloons in Lafayette, as well as for planning "a grand parade" in Logansport. 6
The Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was also a force in the Hoosier State during these years. The WCTU spread throughout the state, and formed grassroots local chapters. Hamilton County developed very strong and substantial county and local WCTU organizations. When they held their sixth annual convention in Evansville in 1880, the state WCTU called on "every auxiliary union, all temperance organizations, and religious bodies who deplore the evils of intemperance, and are willing to co-operate with us for its suppression" to join them in "the midst of a great battle for God and home" against the saloon. 7
Unlike the Murphy movement, the WCTU, because of its membership base, more easily tapped into one of the keys to the early post war temperance enthusiasm, the Victorian ideal of womanhood. This notion held that women were morally superior to men. As such, the Noblesville Independent suggested in 1879 that men who drank should make their wives act as their barkeepers. The idea being that rather than paying a saloon money for drinks, it would be better to just give money to wives, who could buy a large quantity of liquor, and still keep the money in the family. It was because of this defense of the home that temperance would eventually be transformed into prohibition. 8
The Murphy group faced other problems beyond Victorian womanhood, however. In an article in the Noblesville Independent a local writer argued that taking a pledge and wearing a ribbon did not make a person temperate. The writer also questioned the tactics used to get people to sign pledges in the first place, arguing that an emotional appeal against a natural instinct was somehow not proper, and surely not bound to last.9
Since it was mostly men who drank, which meant they were unlikely to attend WCTU meetings and Murphy pledges to abstain from alcohol were doomed to failure, how was the temperance movement ever to make any headway? The answer came in a change of focus. These temperance groups were not against drink as it were; but against what drinking did to the individual, and by relation, to society. They argued that drink could not make a man happy or cure his problems. Those who made alcohol, including moonshiners, were not seen as "a bad class of men at heart;" they were simply uneducated in how good Christians were to conduct themselves. But since education about the problem was not enough, temperance groups started to change both their rhetoric and their actions. In 1880, the WCTU defined "the liquor traffic [as] a sin against God and a cruel wrong against society." By doing so, they moved the temperance crusade from merely combating the excess of drink to fighting against the very source of the excess. 10
And so the saloon, more so than drinking itself, began to be seen as the physical manifestation of evil because it facilitated alcohol consumption. The Republican Ledger argued that the saloon was a gateway to crime as well as being the incubator of drunkenness. The paper warned its readers, "There will be drunkards as long as there is liquor. Those who have fastened the habit on themselves will cease only at the grave." Ending its power became a positive moral good in and of itself.11 Sometimes agitation against it took a physical form. In Shelby County, in 1880, for example, citizens of Morristown "demolished" the town's sole saloon "again." 12
The saloon of the late nineteenth century was everything that temperance people believed it was and much more. It was a mixture, according to Perry R. Davis, of public and private space. It was a small business linked to the rise of big business during the Gilded Age. Saloons were in fierce competition with each other and with other businesses, forcing them to offer food, cigars, slot machines, pool tables, and even women, in order to attract and keep customers.13
Saloons of the late nineteenth century were also places of violence. This idea was commonly found in temperance propaganda for a very good reason, it was fact. In November 1881, for example, a gunfight broke out in a saloon at Fisher's Station, Indiana (modern Fishers), in which one man was killed and another wounded during a drunken dispute. A few months later, in Tunnelton, Indiana, three men were ambushed and shot to death after the community learned of their plans to rob a saloon. 14
In addition to the violence, the saloon was also seen as the local manifestation of the brewing industry, a faceless corporate organization that was growing along side other American industries in the late nineteenth century. Furthermore, brewers and their saloonkeepers were heavily involved in politics. Such an industry, with millions of dollars and millions of drinkers in its pocket to influence government, worried temperance workers to no end. The WCTU took it as a direct challenge when the brewers vowed never to allow temperance speakers into certain areas of the state and nation. 15
The transition from advocating temperance to outright prohibition was hardly smooth and simple. For one, the opponents of liquor kept using the word "temperance" when they really meant "prohibition." This allowed opponents of both to claim to be for "true" temperance, and to cast those seeking prohibition as radicals. It also brought criticism from friends of temperance who did not believe in prohibition. 16
Because of this philosophical change, temperance was no longer primarily a moral or religious issue. It increasingly became a political one as well. In a Republican bastion like Hamilton County, such an issue was potentially deadly. With much of their constituency in pietistic Protestant denominations, the Grand Old Party feared the rise of third party, which sought support from the same base and could take enough of their voting strength to allow a Democratic victory.
The relationship between the temperance cause and the Republican Party were strained to say the very least. Temperance people, as much as their Republican counterparts, feared making temperance a political issue, yet both were drawn to do the very thing they feared. Temperance people, while attempting to remain independent, wanted to see their policies enacted. Republicans wanted to shore up as many votes for themselves as possible. 17
This did not always work out of course. During the primary election of 1878, temperance workers concentrated on Noblesville's fifth ward, hoping to convert it not only to less drinking but also to the Republican banner, at least according to the Noblesville Independent. When this failed, the fifth ward became labeled a "whisky" and Democratic bastion.18
When a prohibition amendment to Indiana's constitution came up during the 1882 election cycle, Republicans grew increasingly fearful of the temperance issue. The Democrats, they argued, had positioned the ratification of the amendment as a partisan issue by saying that two different general assemblies needed to vote on the measure before the people could. If the Republicans came out in support of the amendment and the Democrats against it, it would force temperance Democratic voters into the position of having to choose between a Republican who supported temperance and a Democrat who did not during a year when a United States senator would be chosen by the legislature. 19
Against this background, it was not surprising to eventually see the call for more political action by the nation's churches. If reform was something that grew out of the moral force of Christianity, then it only made sense that reformers come to embrace the political process as well. While the link between temperance groups and churches had been strong before, take the WCTU for example; it only grew stronger after this call was made. The Republican Ledger developed a "Religious" column in the wake of the call, and in one of its first appearances, the paper said that the president of the United States had no need to serve liquor at parties. The column held up Kansas as the model by which the Ledger would judge temperance work in Indiana, because of Kansas's commitment to statewide prohibition. 20
And this was not to say that churches had not previously been a part of the temperance movement, only that as the years went by, their place as central to the movement became increasingly cemented. In many ways, however, the full-blown entry of churches into the temperance/prohibition issue politically only exacerbated tensions between reformers and the political parties. The more temperance became an issue, the more it would have to be addressed, and so it seemed only logical that the temperance cause have its own political party. By the 1884 election, the Republican Party had to deal with the very real threat posed to it by the Prohibition Party. The Prohibition Party had been founded in 1869, and had fielded its first presidential slate in 1872. With each election, its vote totals increased. 21 To Republicans, it seemed clear that the Democrats were using the new party as a "sideshow" and a distraction to pull votes away to an "independent" ticket. According to the Republican Ledger:
Prohibition itself is a principle but the Third Party people do not represent that principle. The tens of thousands of honest Prohibitionists in Indiana represent the principle of Prohibition and the Third party represents only a method. Ninety-five per cent of the earnest temperance people do not believe in the method that the Third party represents. 22By 1886, though these tensions had hardly been eased, the Republican Ledger was ready to call for a local option law for the state. This would allow townships or municipalities to become dry areas. However, at the exact same time, the paper blasted the Prohibition Party for dividing the temperance vote and thus allowing an increase in saloons nationwide to occur. Prohibition Party members of the State Legislature, by refusing to work with the Republican Party on temperance issues, stopped any legislation from being passed. As the election approached, the Ledger was sure that the Democrats wished to see the Prohibition Party succeed only so far as to stop the Republicans from gaining electoral victory and implementing local option. The paper concluded that the third party, which campaigned heavily in Hamilton County, was duping people into voting for them and actually harming the cause of prohibition and temperance, because they wanted prohibition now, not local option. The Ledger believed that because of this, "the Prohis are putting in more time fighting Republicans than they are whisky men." The Ledger was shocked after the election when the General Assembly did not immediately take up the local option cause as its own, despite a Republican victory.23
The paper did rejoice with the formation of the State Temperance Union (STU) though. The STU was founded at meeting held at Meridian Street Methodist Church in Indianapolis in the spring of 1887. The idea behind the STU was to bring together all the various facets of temperance reform into one organization so that they could provide a single voice for the entire movement. And, much like the WCTU, the STU hoped to energize temperance advocates by forming local chapters and through constant agitation. Those behind the STU knew that each group that joined had much to lose in terms of individual accomplishment, but believed more could be gained through united action. As Levi Ritter noted, "harmony is not so much created as it is organized." That became the goal of the Union.24
The STU proposed to operate along the lines of bipartisanship. It did not care what political party people belonged to, so long as politicians were elected who would enact dry legislation. The STU hoped to educate the populace of Indiana about the dangers associated with alcohol and the saloon, as well as to encourage temperance. In addition to local unions and speakers, the STU also wanted to work closely with the churches of Indiana to further their common agenda. The founders of the STU did not doubt it would take time to achieve victory, but now they believed the fight against the saloon could be waged on equal footing.25
Part of the impetus for forming the STU in the first place was the old conviction that the saloon had somehow entered into and corrupted the political system. While everyone was convinced that the saloon must be fought, many temperance advocates were equally sure that the Prohibition Party, and its disregard for a gradual approach, would only spill ruination of the movement.26
The STU knew that it had much work to do in the state. For while the political posturing occurred in the General Assembly, people were still drinking. Business for the saloons was good, which caused others to want to enter it. Though the STU did not believe "men of moral character behind the saloon counter does not make moral saloons. Saloons are like all other evils: morality and goodness are inconsistent with them." People were still ready to apply for licenses, despite the STU's formation. In January 1887, the Noblesville Independent ran six notices of liquor license applications. There were three applicants from Noblesville, two from Sheridan, and one from Cicero. As part of the application process, the potential proprietors were responsible for making public their desire to start a saloon, so that the license board could hear from the community about any potential objections. 27
It did not take the temperance people in Noblesville very long to get organized against this saloon encroachment. In April, a temperance convention was held in the town. The Republican Ledger kicked off the new attack on the saloons with the cry of "let the war be waged vigorously against the saloon and liquor power." Held at the Presbyterian Church, a local STU chapter was quickly formed to prosecute the Ledger's war.28
By August 1887, the Republican Ledger launched a "Temperance" column as part of the paper. In one of its first appearances, the column attributed much of the same characteristics of the "saloon power" in politics, to an earlier manifestation of immoral activity, that of the slave power. It surprised no friend of temperance to find the most ardent defenders of both groups in the Democratic Party. The column went beyond political attacks, however. It actually provided a very broad coverage on the temperance movement. Not only Indiana was discussed, but also temperance work, both morally and politically, across the nation and around the globe. Likewise, the focus of articles included both the economics behind the saloon and the danger that drink posed to the home.29
In an editorial later that August, the Ledger said it was "for Prohibition." And went on to say that "if we can not secure prohibition we prefer high license to free whiskey." The paper also blasted the Prohibition Party as well, claiming the party would rather see "free whiskey," than have a temperance policy short of prohibition actually enacted. It also accused the Democrats of fooling the Prohibition Party into joining alliances with it around the country in order to halt temperance from becoming a legal reality. This sentiment could still be found as the year came to an end. 30
To those who supported the principles of the STU then, forming or joining a new political party was not an option. They believed that doing so would accomplish very little because voters tend not to listen when their faith or their politics were challenged. It was the issue, not the party, which mattered. 31
The Indiana Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, showing it was
in line with this sentiment, issued a pamphlet in 1891 entitled, "An
Appeal to Christians and Especially Friends for more Diligent,
Consecrated and Consistent Effort to Overthrow the Modern 'Abomination
of Desolations' the Liquor Traffic." In it, the Friends argued that
not to "compromise with sin" was the duty of all Christians. The
Friends believed that there could be no resting on the laurels of
past victories. In the case of drink, it was time to stop talking
about abuses and start going after that which caused the abuse to
begin with. Saloons were characterized as "a system of organized
aggressive wickedness," and saloonkeepers were likened to slaveholders.
The Friends said it was time for Christian voters to wield "ballot
power" and destroy the saloon.32
Women also continued to make the temperance issue their own. Despite not having the right to vote, their ability to "influence" was a source of strength to the temperance forces and one of anguish for the liquor establishment. The WCTU held a "methods" school in Westfield during 1892 for women from Hamilton, Hancock, Madison, Marion, Hendricks, and Johnson counties that dealt with how best to go after the saloon.33
The quest for temperance reform, of course, became linked with other "moral" reforms as well. Anything that could attack the family was viewed as a sin. Every year seemed to find a new cause being embraced by local residents. Prostitution had been the cause celebre in 1883. A few years later, in 1899, the Hamilton County Ledger was calling for a "puritanical" Sabbath for the youth of the area. Dancing was also something to be condemned from area pulpits as well. And by 1901, a call to rid Noblesville of gambling houses was also being heard. The following year, cigar stores and Sunday baseball were added to the list of evils facing society. 34
The proliferation of moral reform movements meant that the churches played an increasing role as well. More and more they went from being places where reforms were just called for to also being places from which reform campaigns were organized. In December 1899, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Noblesville hosted a union service that centered on the theme of a "prosperous Noblesville." One of the tenents of Christian prosperity was to have an economy free of vice industries. As First Methodist's pastor Rev. B. S. Hollopeter asked of his congregation the following November how "can we afford to drink?" Another tactic reformers made use of was to link their cause to patriotic sentiment. At a Memorial Day address in Westfield, for example, the audience heard that patriotism had its basis in "Christian moral character." The implication being that good Christians and good patriots did not take part in vice-based businesses.35
Despite all of this talk and political wrangling, the saloon was still there and still prospering. The Indianapolis Brewing Company even ran ads in the Noblesville Democrat during 1896. Several saloons were granted licenses in December 1899 to operate in the county. 36
The logical thing to do then, from the moral reformers point of view, was to increase the number of people who came under their view during the week. According to a study commissioned by the Christian Church, only a quarter of Noblesville's residents attended worship services on any given Sunday. This meant that there was an evangelistic field close to home just waiting to be harvested. In 1902 both First Methodist and the Presbyterian Church concentrated their efforts on getting more men to come to church.37
By 1900, a new group was starting to attract press attention for its efforts against the saloon. Its name was the Anti Saloon League (ASL), and it took over the place once held by the STU in the state. The ASL, founded in the 1890s in Ohio, was a professional reform group dedicated to the destruction of the saloon. It used local churches to spread its message, and over the course of the 1890s and early 1900s, brought the WCTU and the Prohibition Party slowly but surely into its orbit. The national League established a state organization known as the Indiana Anti Saloon League (IASL) in 1898, which was given credit for helping to close down several saloons in Terre Haute soon after its formation. The tactic now most often being employed by the forces opposed to the saloon was the remonstrance, where an election was held to vote a ward, township, or even a city dry. It was used in Mitchell, Indiana in June in order to make the town dry. 38
Saloon forces did not take such actions lying down, however. Sheridan saloon owners filed suit against temperance workers in Adams Township because they were trying to shut them down. One of their saloons was closed after temperance workers showed that it had not properly given public notice during its licensing request. Despite this, the proprietor, Willow Fisher, continued to keep the place open, much to the dismay of temperance people. 39
The accounts of the saloons that filled the Hamilton County Ledger were still ones relating to death. The paper reported of an Indianapolis man who was literally thrown out of a saloon for disorderly conduct, cracked his head in the ensuing fall, and died from head trauma. In another story, a miner in Clinton, Indiana got drunk in a local saloon after work, passed out, and died. The paper also interviewed a man who said he was a "slave to the drink habit," and often spent all the money he makes on whisky. It was for reasons such as these that one letter writer to the paper called liquor the "dark beverage of Hell." 40
With such dramatic stories, it is of little surprise that some temperance agitators opted not to go the legal route in stopping saloons from making headway in their communities. In Wilkinson, Indiana three saloons were dynamited by townspeople in order to stop them from doing business. A Tipton woman went into a saloon with a hatchet after she saw her husband in it. The saloon was in violation of an agreement with local temperance forces over when it would be open.41
The Prohibition Party was still very much around in 1900, and could look back with some satisfaction on its work. Its vote totals had steadily increased for most of its thirty-one year history, reaching their apex in 1892 with 271,058 votes nation wide. Its totals for 1900 would bring its largest show of Hoosier support to date, with 13,718 voters siding with the party, crushing the Socialists by over 11,000 votes. Though Republicans were "triumph[ant]" in Hamilton County, the state, and nation in 1900, the Prohibition Party was able to get 420 votes in the county, a quarter of which came from Quaker dominated Washington Township. These figures did not worry Republicans though; who remained confident that "practical temperance" legislation would eventually crush their Prohibition Party rivals.42
The agitation of temperance and other moral reformers culminated in the Noblesville city council ordering a stop to gambling and illegal liquor sales in April 1901. The council followed this up with a Sunday saloon closing order in May. Yet despite these proclamations, gambling dens continued to thrive in the city, and a dry Sabbath could only be insured by constant police vigilance at every known door of every saloon.43
In November 1901, the IASL came to Noblesville. The organization held a large meeting at the Evangelical church, as well as services at the United Brethren and First Methodist. These meetings laid the ground work for a large community wide temperance day ever, in which the IASL spoke to a rally of 6,000 people, as well as to the congregations of the Christian, First Methodist, Friends, and Presbyterian churches. The end result was the formation of a county arm of the IASL. 44
Such action was seemingly necessary. As the Hamilton County Ledger reported shortly after the temperance meetings, there was one saloon in Indiana for every 573 people. Temperance workers redoubled their efforts. With the help of the IASL, Charles O. McNulty was arrested and charged with twenty-two counts of violating liquor laws in 1902. 45
With the combined action of the city council and churches, saloon business began to go down in the city. The Hamilton County Ledger was happy to report that people were now saving the money that they once spent on liquor. As a result, Hamilton County eventually saw the formation of a Liquor League to protect the interests of saloon owners. In one of their first actions, the Liquor League protested a remonstrance in Jackson Township.46
The Liquor League had cause for hope, since the temperance forces did not always score victories in their efforts. In June 1901, a Davies County, Indiana judge admonished the local WCTU because it had withdrawn court proceedings against several saloons after the saloonkeepers had promised the ladies they would be better about observing the law. He said this made a "mockery of justice" and warned them not to do it again. In December 1902 the IASL met defeat in the Noblesville courts when the judge ruled that a saloon was not on an alley. The following January, seventeen cases against William Franklin of Sheridan were dismissed because the detectives the IASL had used to infiltrate the saloon were out of state. Their disappearance meant that cases against Charles O. McNulty would also have to be dropped. 47
Despite legal setbacks, the Rev. Hollopeter of First Methodist attempted to keep the pressure on governmental officials with a series of temperance sermons. He said the saloon was pitted against the home in a struggle for the future. According to the pastor, the home nurtured the family and government while the saloons destroyed both pillars of civilization. He also doubted if an "open town" was a safe place for either homes or businesses. The North Indiana Conference of the Methodist Church, while meeting in Noblesville, said that only religious men should be allowed in government, joined Hollopeter in his efforts. 48
The temperance cause, then, was reenergized. Atlanta, Indiana ministers organized to block a saloon from getting a license because of the "moral character" of the proprietor and his investment in slot machines for the establishment. After a man was whipped by a Noblesville saloon keeper for checking to see if the saloon was indeed open on Sunday, the temperance forces again got the city council to enforce a dry Sabbath. In October of 1903 a coordinated, union revival sponsored by the city's churches, swept over Noblesville. People who came to the services also heard denunciations of card playing, billiards, theatre going, dancing. 49
But the end of 1903 and beginning of 1904 was a period of ebbs and flows for the movement in Hamilton County. Nearby Lapel went dry, though it was difficult to enforce. The IASL withdrew its moral protest allowing a Sheridan man to open a saloon in Adams Township. The Methodist Church announced plans for a second congregation in Noblesville, to be located on South Ninth Street in Noblesville. 50
Temperance remained in the news. The Friends Church held a temperance Sunday in February, selling of liquor by mail was blasted in a letter to the paper, and the police promised to fully enforce all the "moral" laws. In June, a temperance revival was planned for every church in the county. Though nonpolitical, it coincided with a major moment in the temperance cause. 51
As early as 1902, J. Frank Hanly was a local "favorite" in Noblesville. He was energetic, a Methodist, and a foe of every conceivable moral vice, but especially alcohol. In April 1904, the Republican Party nominated Hanly for governor, and at a Decoration Day event at Noblesville's First Methodist Church in June Hanly was the guest of honor. When Rev. Hollopeter called on every man in the city to vote, there was little doubt about which man he thought they should vote for. In an attempt not to be outdone, the Prohibition Party made a play for votes as well. In July their national convention was held in Indianapolis, and in August, representatives of the party visited Noblesville. 52
The tenor of the campaign coincided with an increase in moral law enforcement. In September, the police ordered all slot machines out of Noblesville. The city called on the churches to help with this, as well as with the effort to stop prizes from being awarded at card parties. In November, a woman from Arcadia, Indiana sued a local saloon because it served her husband alcohol after he was intoxicated. She contended that they had all but stolen her husband's money. She won her case, and the saloon was fined $77.50. 53
The Republicans won a large victory in November. According to the Hamilton County Ledger, the saloon had learned a tough lesson by trying to take over the state house, saying that liquor would not be allowed to "dictate politics" in Indiana. And by not leaving well enough alone, it may have brought down upon itself severe penalties. Undaunted though, liquor lobbyists vowed to seek the overthrow of the Nicholson remonstrance law. They also contended that forcing only saloons to close on Sundays, and not other businesses was unfair.54
Shortly after Hanly was sworn in as governor, big things started to happen for the temperance forces. Hamilton County prosecutor Hines announced he was going after George McPherson's saloon, while the city vowed it was going to close all the "questionable resorts" within its limits. The Prohibition Party blasted the IASL for being too close to the Republican Party and for the obvious duplication of effort. The State Legislature began the process of working on a new bill that would further regulate the saloons as well as possibly further the power of remonstrance. Known as the Moore Bill, it was "practically" a local option law. 55
Legal action against saloons also continued. In April, C.O. McNulty, the proprietor of the Mecca Saloon on the southwest corner of the square in Noblesville, was brought up on charges of violating the liquor laws. He was acquitted of three charges and convicted of three. The remaining cases were dropped when one of the IASL's lawyers quit the case because he believed he was owed money, something the County ASL chairman, Thomas Farhey, denied. 56
In August, just before he launched a series of raids on gambling resorts in the state, Gov. Hanly won the endorsement of several groups from Hamilton County. The county WCTU, the local Prohibition Party members, the Alliance, and the County ASL met jointly, and issued a statement commending the governor for all of his work. They also vowed to work together more. Not long after they met, the Carmel Friends issued a statement endorsing Hanly as well. The governor would continue to press for Sunday saloon closings across the state for the remainder of the year. He also worked to get the Republican Party in line for even more reforms in 1906. 57
The readers of the Hamilton County Ledger were encouraged to vote in 1905 by the paper and from their pulpits. The paper advocated a straight GOP ticket, while Rev. J.T. Charlton of the Presbyterian Church just argued for the men of the city to vote as a Christian duty. Shortly after the election, the paper ran a sermon from the pulpit of Ninth Street Methodist in which Rev. Loren M. Edwards said Christian men should be the rulers of the earth in all areas. 58
One of the issues swirling about the election was the "morality" of saloonkeepers and the county commissioners who issued them licenses. Could "good" men really be involved in any way with a trade that produced death and destruction, as it was alleged to have done in a recent train accident near Cicero? The liquor trade also seemed to be gaining judicial power as well. Shortly after the election, a judge ruled that blanket remonstrance were unconstitutional. The IASL vowed to take the matter to the Indiana Supreme Court. 59
Of course the liquor issue was still tied to numerous other moral reforms, and in post-election Noblesville, women pushed the crusade forward. Still denied the right to vote, female reform zeal had to find other ways to place pressure on to the government. One way was to go before the city council. In December, they asked for better enforcement of Noblesville's cigarette laws, as well as for more of an effort to keep children out of pool halls.60
The IASL called a countywide meeting for Hamilton County in January 1906. Meeting at the Christian church in Noblesville, the county league decided to push for a remonstrance of Noblesville Township. IASL superintendent Ulysses G. Humphreys addressed the meeting. The Hamilton County Ledger endorsed the effort. In February, after securing the support of the Prohibition Party in the county and the ministers of Noblesville, the County ASL was ready to begin work on a remonstrance campaign. Additionally, they decided to start a legal defense fund of $10,000. The ministers of the town even organized temperance Sunday for Noblesville, which was addressed by Humphreys. Their actions were closely watched by nearby communities such as Tipton. 61
The county league moved from meetings to action very quickly. Cicero women began advocating for Sunday closings in their town. Articles and letters appeared in the Hamilton County Ledger describing all sorts of problems seen as outgrowths of the saloons. For one, it was alleged that the saloons did not pay enough in fees to claim that their closing in Noblesville would actually hurt the city's economy. The morality of the saloon trade was raised, since it was drink that drove men to attack their wives and put their children in orphanages. The Sheridan News ran a cartoon depicting men flocking to the saloon as one way some observed the Sabbath. In this environment, it was not surprising to find the Noblesville paper supporting the idea of the Moore amendment to the Nicholson remonstrance law. 62
The IASL made a return trip to Noblesville as the remonstrance election drew nearer. Speakers were in the pulpits of the Friends, Methodist, United Brethren, and Christian churches during a late April temperance Sunday. This was followed by sermons later in May from the pulpits of First Methodist and First Christian calling for an end to the saloons and of enforcement of the laws. The organization also provided Sheridan seven detectives to help crack the "nefarious business." Their work resulted in forty-eight indictments, and the arrests of several saloonkeepers, including C.H. Fisher. 63
Politicians handled this pressure in a variety of ways, for when the lid was put on; some always complained it was put on too tightly. In Kokomo, for example, the city could only handle two dry Sundays before saloons were once again allowed to be open. The mayor of Noblesville, on the other hand, responded to criticism that he was not enforcing the laws governing saloons by telling the Hamilton County Ledger that he could not enforce every law "to the letter," and that most people were happy with the way he ran the town. Nor did the pressure seem to have that great of an affect on liquor licenses being issued. Though Charles O. McNulty was rejected for a license in June, two licenses were granted and three more applied for within a month. 64
In August 1906, a revival was launched at First Methodist that continued to make the saloon the issue in Noblesville. Rev. Barrett, the revivalist, decided to post notices of his services in the city's saloons. The advertising paid off with large audiences attending almost from the beginning. Barrett continued the practice of linking alcohol consumption to other sins, saying that "dancing and card playing," which often were associated with drinking, were "the border land of sin." 65
As was often the case, a revival that started in one of the city's main congregations often grew into a union revival. Rev. E.B. Barnes of the Christian Church followed Barrett in First Methodist's pulpit. Barnes argued that fraternal lodges were not charitable organizations and that they did harm to churches by directing members' time and money to places other than the Church. Though not everyone agreed with him, Rev. Edwin Dickson of Ninth Street Methodist did. He said clubs, dancing, and cards needed to be ended in Noblesville. Rev. Sylvester Newlin of the Friends Church also picked up the theme as well. 66
The agitation about the issue seemed to pay off. Temperance workers in Westfield and Sheridan managed to have a man fined for selling liquor without a license. The citizens of Sheridan formed a Law Enforcement League in the weeks leading up to the election. Edgar C. Wilson was elected mayor of Noblesville for the fourth time in twenty years in September, promising a crackdown on gambling and liquor selling. An Atlanta saloon got its license rejected because the building was not on a street, and the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a remonstrance in Adams Township. 67
But for every two steps forward the temperance cause seemed to make, it took one step backwards. Not long after the mid-year vice crackdown, Noblesville's citizens were once again complaining that police were letting boys into pool halls and that gambling rooms were nearly as wide open in violation of the law as saloons. This only caused more agitation, prompting the city council to vote to bar all minors from saloons and poolrooms in December. 68
As the year came to a close, Rev. R.W. Clymer of the Christian Church was happy to tell his congregation that it appeared as though the laws would be enforced in Noblesville now. Rev. John T. Charlton, with the mayor in attendance, told his fellow Presbyterians that the dangers to a community must be proclaimed in the pulpits and the press, and dealt with by the men elected to office. For its part, the IASL vowed to keep the pressure on and push for temperance legislation in the General Assembly.69
And it was on this note that 1907 began. Representative E.A. Mock, of Tipton and Hamilton counties, said that legislation was badly needed to address the problem of "blind tigers." Such a problem was well known, as a druggist in Fishers was arrested in January for selling liquor without a license, and an Atlanta saloonkeeper was arrested for selling alcohol to minors. The superintendent of the Indiana Reformatory told a meeting at the Presbyterian Church that liquor and gambling were the leading causes of men going to prison. 70
Little wonder that Noblesville was pleased to learn that the House passed a blind tiger bill in February, or that citizens of the county were shocked to hear of a Lapel Methodist minister being attacked by a man whose saloon had recently been closed. The Noblesville Christian Church used this as an opportunity to call for Sunday closings and the Prohibition Party in the county reorganized itself. 71
In March 1907, the IASL announced that it was going to help James M. Lambert of Noblesville challenge the constitutionality of the state licensing law. Their target in the lawsuit was Edward L. Sopher. The idea behind the lawsuit was that the state should not be in the business of legitimizing dangerous and immoral activities. Sopher was convicted of operating a public nuisance on the north side of the Noblesville town square in May. But the battle over the constitutionality of the license procedure continued, and the state supreme court eventually overturned his conviction. 72
The idea of labeling saloons as public nuisances had garnered some support when Judges Samuel Artman of Lebanon and Ira W. Christian of Noblesville both ruled that saloons were evils in and of themselves. The West Grove and Westfield Quarterly meetings of Friends praised Christian for his opinion. But the legal standing of saloons was confused when a judge in Valparaiso ruled that remonstrance could be used to allow saloons to be open on Sundays. If that was not enough, saloonkeepers were constantly challenging Sunday closing laws as it was. In Evansville, saloonkeepers announced that they were tired of being closed, and so, would open. They did not believe any jury would convict them. Saloonkeepers elsewhere in the state were even willing to cut deals with temperance people, stopping, say gambling, in order to avoid laws getting passed. 73
All during these various legal maneuvers, the political and law enforcement
battles between wets and drys continued. Both Lapel and Sheridan went dry
in April. Mayor Wilson worked to put the lid on in Noblesville. Yet despite
his and others best efforts there was an attempt to open a saloon in Westfield
and two houses in Noblesville were raided as suspected "blind tigers" and
brothels. An Eagletown man was even arrested for bootlegging. In December,
six men were arrested in a gambling room over the Cosey Saloon on South
Eighth Street in Noblesville.
74
1908 was an election year, and as such, the saloon and temperance were to be even more important as issues than they had been the year before. Gov. Hanly had set the tempo the previous September, when he had called for a total war to make the saloons extinct. In January, the Hamilton County ASL again called for a remonstrance to make Noblesville and Jackson Townships dry. Mayor Wilson ordered the saloons to be closed on the upcoming Election Day. During the Christian Church's revival, Rev. E. Richard Edwards told the audience that machine politicians feared independent voters. A temperance speaker came to the Opera House. The Prohibition Party condemned the place of liquor in politics with its largest Hamilton County convention ever. The party's national convention later that year would say that their victory was "not a forlorn hope." 75
The Prohibition Party, however, would suffer a serious defeat at the polls. Though, as in 1904, the party was able to beat the Socialists in Indiana, its percentage of the overall vote dropped to a mere 2.5%. In Hamilton County, the party had mustered a mere 267, down from its best performance of 411 in 1892. Yet, the Prohibitionists could still take some pride in garnering over a quarter of a million votes nationwide from twenty-eight states. 76
In February, Adams Township temperance people filed a remonstrance to keep saloons out of Sheridan and to stop John McCarty from opening a saloon. The drys won by 136 votes. A Cicero man was denied a liquor license because he was of poor moral character. When brewers announced that such actions hurt the economy by driving them out of business, the Sheridan WCTU responded that if the brewers were really worried about workers, they would not produce a product that financially ruined and killed those who consumed it. 77
Despite these victories, the presence of blind tigers seemed to be everywhere in the county. One was suspected at the Sixth Street Bottle Work in Noblesville. Likewise, police raided a drug store in Danville in Hendricks County claiming it was one.78 Their proliferation was caused by the denial of liquor licenses and the idea that potential saloon men still wanted to make money by selling booze.
The Noblesville Christian Church became the hub of temperance activity in 1908. The WCTU held a meeting there at the end of March. The organizational meeting of the Noblesville Civic League was also held at the church. The new group was comprised of 171 men, most of who owned and operated businesses in Noblesville. Their common goal was to improve the city's morals and force the saloons to follow the laws.79
A new call was heard, that of county local option, which would be a step beyond remonstrance, by making entire counties dry in a single vote. Rev. Shumaker of the IASL spoke at Sheridan's Methodist and Christian churches in August in favor of local option. State Prohibition Party candidates, who also visited Noblesville and Cicero, followed him into town and also picked up on the theme of action. 80
Gov. Hanly, in his opening address to the 1907 Indiana General Assembly, asked the lawmakers to pass at the very least, some form of local option. He said, "the right of a free people to exclude from their communities a traffic whose every element is an unmixed evil is fundamental." And though the General Assembly considered eight different pieces of legislation from the House and eleven in the Senate during the session, they were unable to pass a single one. This was despite numerous petitions from voters, interest groups, and churches begging for any such law. 81
Some were not willing to take no for an answer. The Hamilton County Ledger called on the Republican dominated General Assembly to pass a local option bill or for Gov. Hanly to request a special session. The paper linked Democratic opposition to local option to an entity it called the "brewery combine," a force it believed included state Democratic boss Thomas Taggart. The Ledger also attacked Prohibition Party members who seemed more inclined to support the Democratic efforts to block any temperance bill that fell short of full prohibition. 82
The very idea of a special session divided the Republican Party. While local option had been placed in the party platform, many believed it had been done so in order to simply win votes, not to be enacted. Now the party was being challenged to do what it had promised it would do before the election. James Watson, a rising star within the Republican Party, was the party's candidate to succeed Hanly. He told the people of Noblesville that he supported the idea of local option, and attacked Democrats for not being for it. Watson went so far as to say that the Democrats were in league with "wicked" people. 83
Hanly did call for a special session in early September, blasting liquor interests and saying that local option protected the majority from having the will of the minority imposed upon them. H.M. Caylor, the representative from Hamilton County did not state his opinion on local option, but the Hamilton County Ledger did. In an editorial, the paper said, "this temperance question looms large in the political horizon. It is the paramount issue before the people. It has come to the point as to whether the people or the brewers shall rule." 84
In Noblesville, the governor's call was widely popular. It came at the same time that Mayor Wilson vowed to look into charges made by the Hamilton County Ledger that some saloons were open on Sunday despite his Sunday closing order, and that there were gambling operations in the city as well. Additionally, Noblesville was visited by the IASL in September, with speakers at the Christian and Ninth Street Methodist churches. Gov. Hanly also spoke in Sheridan to an enthusiastic crowd. 85
The pastor of Ninth Street Methodist, Rev. Edwin Dickson, said in a sermon that local option must be passed, and though he usually voted for the Prohibition Party, he was ready to vote for the Republicans. He believed that if liquor could not be out right eliminated, then it must be pushed aside. The editorial page of the Hamilton County Ledger said that other prohibition ministers were following Dickson into support of the Republicans. In an editorial, the paper said:
The temperance question is the paramount issue in Indiana. It is not a political but a moral question. It is a question of law and order. It is a question of whether the brewers and saloons or the people shall rule. 86The Democrats counterattacked. Thomas Marshall, the Democratic nominee for governor, said that preachers had no right to be talking politics from the pulpit. Rev. L.M. Krider of First Methodist took issue with the Democrats. In a sermon entitled "Politics, Preachers, and the Temperance Issue," he blasted Marshall and the "machine politics" he represented for standing against local option. To Krider, liquor was an "obstacle" in the way of the progress of the "gospel chariot." The Hamilton County Ledger also attacked Marshall's opinion of pastors and politics, saying that it was a "civic right" of ministers to speak out on issues like Dickson and Krider had been. 87
As the vote over local option approached in the House, the Ledger noted that Marshall had the support of brewers and of "French Lick gamblers," both groups that feared local option. The papers contended that the brewers were also busy lobbying Democratic members of the General Assembly in Indianapolis, but that temperance lobbyists were in place as well. 88
The special session opened with the governor addressing the legislature. In his speech, he told the gathered lawmakers that if local option was the right thing for the state, than there were no reason to wait until after the election in order to pass it. He also said that the corner tavern of old was a "memory," that now saloons were controlled by large interests that cared nothing for their patrons, except for the money that could be brought in. 89
Once again, lawmakers crafted a variety of legislation that dealt with the liquor issue. And as in the regular session, they were bombarded with petitions and pleas from constituents and interested parties requesting relief from the liquor curse. This time though, they were able to pass a local option bill, which the governor promptly signed into law. The House passed it 72 to 28, while the Senate passed it 32 to 17. 90
Noblesville waited anxiously for word on the vote. When word came that Gov. Hanly had signed local option into the law, a tide of triumphant victory flowed over the crowd. The Hamilton County Ledger said that this was a "great victory," and also contended that if Noblesville went dry, it could expect to do more business than if it stayed wet. 91
But the political battle was actually far from over. The election was still to be held. When Republican James Watson spoke in Noblesville and Sheridan to large crowds, he was quick to argue that local option was not the same thing as prohibition. The distinction between the two was a line that the Democrats were attempting to blur as much as possible. The Indiana Federation of Labor, which according to the Ledger, was dominated by brewers, passed resolutions denouncing both Watson and the IASL because of local option. The Ledger contended that the working class of the state was being sacrificed on an altar built by the brewery interests. When Marshall came to town, the paper noted that while the crowd that heard him was large; those gathered heard a speech of poor quality. 92
As the campaign grew to a close, the Ledger contended that Watson's strength was growing. The paper also said that brewers were attempting to buy the election for Marshall by offering a free lunch to anyone who would vote the Democratic ticket. There were also reports that the brewers were offering cash for votes as well. Whether the Ledger was right or if the Democrats were just successful in painting local option as full-blown prohibition that the people never got to vote on, is hard to know for sure, but what is certain is that while Taft carried Indiana, Thomas Marshall was elected governor. In Hamilton County, only one Democrat, Meade Vestal, was elected. The Prohibition Party slate of candidates averaged 418 votes in the county. 93
Despite this setback, or perhaps because of it, the temperance forces began to push for local option elections to take place as soon as possible. For with Marshall came a Democratic state legislature as well, and with it, the fear of repeal of local option. In the paper, Rev. Edward S. Shumaker of the IASL was given a column to attack the saloons as bad for business. Local option rallies were held all over the county. In January, Hamilton County voted to go dry by a margin of 2,188 votes: 4,163 drys to 1,975 wets. Only five precincts, out of forty, had wet majorities. Not surprisingly, those wet areas of the county were to be found in Noblesville, Arcadia, and Cicero. 94
When the victory was announced, over 200 people gathered at First Methodist church to sing praises, and then walked to the courthouse to celebrate in public. The liquor trade, which had been part of both the city and the county since 1831, was no more. According to John F. Haines, an early twentieth century historian of the county, "it is to be hoped [that] the saloons are gone to stay." 95
Chapter 2: From Local Concern to National Priority
Chapter 3: From the Cross of Christ to the Fiery Cross
Chapter 4: From Civic Need to Miscellaneous Issue