The Futility of Prohibition
A skeptical legislator warns that strict alcohol bans in Washington Territory will lead only to evasion, black markets, and public distrust.
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.
Mr. Bigelow said: I cannot support this bill. Some of its provisions are too stringent to be successfully enforced in this Territory and I venture to predict that if this bill passes, every tavern-keeper will be tempted to evade it. In confirmation of this, I will call attention to what I could note under my observation subsequent to the passage of a law similar to this in the State of Maine. The liquor-loving people of that State cannot enter a city of Maine and purchase their liquor; some carried the bottles containing it in barrels of clover seed; others in wood boxes fashioned and painted like coffins. This was a few of the many ways contrived to elude the vigilant officers who were on the lookout for all violations of the law. If the law cannot be enforced with success in one of the older States of the Union, can it be done in a new Territory like ours? Naturally not.
“Some of its provisions are too stringent to be successfully enforced in this Territory.”
This 1854 debate echoes the enduring tension in Pacific Northwest politics regarding the efficacy of prohibition and the ‘black market’ unintended consequences of moralizing legislation, a recurring theme in the history of Washington’s temperance movements.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.