Washington’s 1916 Dry Law Fueled Bootlegging Syndicates
An editorial argument against the state's dry laws, claiming they fueled criminal syndicates and destroyed home order.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
During the early part of 1916, the new dry law of the state of Washington, put into effect January 1st, apparently gave general satisfaction. The saloons were abolished, there was less drunkenness, fewer arrests, and little crime. However, citizens accustomed to moderate use of alcohol had stocked up before the law took effect. By March, these supplies were exhausted, and the county auditor's office was besieged for import permits. Drug stores, blind-pigs, and bootleggers proliferated. The illicit traffic grew into huge syndicates. The course has been downward ever since, as citizens are unable to procure moderate supplies legally. The adoption of Initiative Measure No. 24, which seeks to allow for the purchase of mild beer for private use at home, will restore order.
“The boot-legger, with profound knowledge of the workings of human nature, had been content to wait, knowing that the demand would come, and prepared to satisfy it, on his own terms.”
This editorial captures the messy transition Washington experienced during the 1916 dry law, mirroring modern policy debates about whether prohibition of illicit substances actually reduces harm or simply consolidates power among criminal networks.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.