Seattle Bootlegging Rose After Dry Law Stocks Ran Out
Pro-liquor advocates use the rise of bootlegging and 'blind pigs' to argue for the passage of Initiative 24, claiming that legalizing home delivery of light beer is the only path to temperance.
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.
From December 1st to 31st, 1915, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of intoxicating beverages were purchased and stored for home use, with Seattle alone aggregating $1,500,000. Between January 1st and March 1st, 1916, there was comparative quiet and little drunkenness. However, since March 1916, following the exhaustion of those stocks, the situation has shifted. The county auditor is besieged with permit requests, drug stores have become fronts for illicit trade, and bootlegging has flourished, leading to public scandal. October saw a record number of arrests for drunkenness. The moral suggests that decency prevails when the use of pure, mild beer is confined to the home. Proponents argue that Initiative Measure No. 24, which permits the manufacture of 4 percent beer for limited home delivery, is a true temperance measure that will render bootleggers obsolete.
“Exhaustion largely of stocks acquired during month of December, 1916, for home use. County Auditor besieged with ever-increasing demands for permits to import.”
This 1916 editorial captures the classic 'repeal' argument: that criminalizing a product does not eliminate demand but merely shifts it to dangerous, unregulated markets. The debate over 'blind pigs' and the rise of the underground economy echoes modern discussions regarding the unintended consequences of restrictive drug and alcohol policies.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.