Wine grapes being sold from the train at Drumm St. in San Francisco

WILL WINE COUNTRY SURVIVE PROHIBITION?

May 28, 2019May 29, 2019 Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

The forecast was cloudy with a chance of doom.

In the final weeks of 1919, no one in Sonoma county knew what would happen when Prohibition officially began on Jan. 17, 1920. Was it just token political gimcrackery to appeal to a certain class of voters, or was this really the end of the wine industry in the United States? Our wine-making, grape-growing and beer-brewing ancestors already had endured a year of being whipsawed by good/bad news, and now the frightful precipice yawned directly before them.

For those new here, some background will help: This is the third and final article about that bumpy road to national Prohibition. Part one (“Onward, Prohibition Soldiers“) covers local efforts by the “dry” prohibitionists to close or restrict saloons in Sonoma county in the years following the 1906 earthquake. Part two (“Winter is Coming: The Year Before Prohibition“) picks up the story in 1918, when the notion of prohibition has expanded beyond simple demands for temperance into a tribal war between rural, conservative and WASPy sections of the nation against those who lived in areas which were urban, progressive and multicultural.

Much of the angst during the latter part of 1919 centered around the “Wartime Prohibition Act,” a law that pretended the U.S. was still fighting WWI although the war had been over for a while. The real intent of the Act was to impose bone-dry prohibition upon America months before the real 18th Amendment Prohibition took effect, but there were legal questions raised and the Justice Department said the government (probably) wouldn’t enforce it, leading to patchwork compliance.

Saloons in Petaluma and Healdsburg closed, but many in Santa Rosa remained open pending a court decision, the bars becoming de facto speakeasies: “In some saloons, it is said, you have to cock your left eyebrow and ask for ginger ale, while in others you ask for whisky and get it,” reported the Press Democrat.

“City and county officials seem to have adopted a policy of hands off,” noted the PD, but all that ended shortly before Hallowe’en, after President Woodrow Wilson tried to kill the Wartime Prohibition Act and failed (see part II). Santa Rosa went dry, although some saloons stayed open to serve soft drinks – perhaps with something extra for the left eyebrow crowd – in the hopes that the courts would rule the Act unconstitutional, allowing America to have one last “wet Christmas” before full-fledged Prohibition kicked in. Sorry, the Supreme Court finally said in mid-December; the Act was valid law. Hearing that news left millions of Americans crying in their beer – or would have, if there were any suds to be had.

Over the following weeks, newspapers ran stories about their local taverns shutting down or evolving into some other kind of business. Reporters marveled that famous bars with their polished brass foot rails were sold for the wood and metal; the back bars, with their ornate carvings and etched mirrors which had reflected generations of men arguing politics and fast horses were taken apart and went for cheap. From the PD:

Santa Rosa saloon sites will be occupied by restaurants, candy factories and candy stores, and even by real estate offices…In only a few cases are saloon owners hanging onto their leases of Santa Rosa property, with any idea that they might be able to return to business. “It’s all over, so why worry about coming back,” declared one former saloon proprietor…About half of the old saloon sites are already wiped off the map. More are in process of change, and of the few remaining open as cigar stores and soft drink emporiums…

Sebastopol's cigar store had a soda counter during Prohibition, then later became "Jack's Bar" after repeal, as seen in the insert. The soda shop/cigar store/pool hall/cafe was owned by Jack Daveiro at 153 North Main Street, now the location of the Main Street Saloon. Images courtesy Sonoma County Library — The Sebastopol cigar store had a soda counter during Prohibition, then later became “Jack’s Bar” after repeal, as seen in the insert. The soda shop/cigar store/pool hall/cafe was at 153 North Main Street, now the location of the Main Street Saloon. Images courtesy Sonoma County Library

While the barkeeps and the drinking public were made miserable by Prohibition’s approach, the grape growers seemed to wobble between denial and panic.

Just as the saloon crowd hung on to an unrealistic optimism that Prohibition would include an exemption for beer (see part II), many growers couldn’t imagine their lovingly tendered vineyards might become worthless overnight. The editor of the California Grape Grower newsletter found “during the last weeks of August, the writer visited practically every grape district in the State in an effort arouse the growers to an understanding of the critical situation. He was amazed to find them making absolutely no preparations for the disposal of their crop in the case the wineries were not permitted to operate.” Louis J. Foppiano later said in an interview they thought Prohibition “might last a few months, if ever, and then things would get back to normal.”¹

The Sonoma County Grape Growers’ Association was only slightly more realistic. Faced with the choice of crushing the 1919 vintage or letting the grapes rot on the vine, they recommended proceeding with the harvest and holding the crush in reserve until the prohibition question is finally solved [emphasis mine].

But trusted authorities were telling them to get out of the wine grape business – NOW. Even 72 year-old Charles Wetmore, who had devoted most of his life to building the California wine industry, said any growers who did not have a contract for their grapes “should lose no time in converting all the space they can into young orchards.” The PD reported “all over the county the vineyards are being stripped of their grapes, and in many cases the pickers are being closely followed by other crews, tearing out their vines in anticipation of this being the last crop that will ever be harvested in the county.”

The advice from the Department of Agriculture was that Sonoma and Napa growers should switch to raisins – even though it was pointed out that wine grapes do not make good raisins because A) they have seeds, B) are not sweet, and since we have a shorter growing season than places in the Central Valley C) the raisins would rot on the vines instead of shriveling. The government’s response was that growers could replant all the vineyards – or, since there was a market for subpremium U.S. Grade B raisins, maybe we should be happy to settle for becoming a second-class version of Fresno.

From the State Board of Viticultural Commissioners came wails of lamentation, that Prohibition would “seal the doom” for an entire agricultural industry unless the Amendment was overturned, as wine grapes could only be used to make fresh wine. Don’t even try turning it into grape syrup or unfermented grape juice, they warned, “because there is no rational assurance that such products could be successfully marketed.”

Let’s hit pause for a moment to consider the scope of all this. Saloons could be repurposed into restaurants; instead of selling to breweries and distillers, grain farmers could sell to flour mills and make the same money. But wineries couldn’t be turned into ice cream parlors, and it would take years for any “young orchard” to bear a fruit crop. Hops, a major Sonoma county crop unaffected by Prohibition, was out of the question because the plants needed a plentiful water supply. Thus the United States government was about to wreck the economy of Northern California – and for no reason other than pleasing the moral ideals of some. Hardest hit would be Sonoma county, where the wine business brought in $4 million/year.² Put another way: It would be like the government today forcing the county to lose about a billion dollars of its GDP over the next decade.

This was a serious issue which urgently needed a serious national debate – but instead of that, our ancestors received a condescending lecture. Since the real intent of prohibition was to bully the rest of country into obeying WASP cultural standards, it should come as no surprise that a self-righteous prig blamed Wine Country for being the cause its own problems.

“The Wine-Grape Riddle” was a lengthy essay which appeared in Country Gentleman, the most popular magazine in rural America. It accurately quoted the red flag warnings from state Board re: no use for the grapes other than making wine, most of the vineyard land being unable to support any other kind of farming, plus nothing would be as profitable as wine grapes. Mostly, however, the editorial writer makes sneering remarks about the North Bay having a remarkable number of idiots. “The combined intelligence of all the purveyors and manufacturers of intoxicants who ever lived wouldn’t furnish the average pullet with sense to cross the street safely.”

According to the author we demonstrated our collective stupidity by voting for prohibition, thus acting against our own best interests. That was a remarkably ignorant thing to write; the previous year Californians had voted against pro-prohibition ballot items, and by overwhelming numbers in Wine Country (see part II). And, of course, voters never had a direct say in its passage – amendments to the Constitution are ratified by the state legislature.

But that was just the editor’s starting premise; he claimed 42 percent of Sonoma county farmers were foreign born, further presuming most never bothered becoming citizens so they could vote – which was because they were Italians and too simple-minded to understand what prohibition meant. Yes, Gentle Reader, on the eve of a multi-million dollar agricultural crisis, the largest chunk of (what was almost certainly) the most widely read information about the situation was at its core an assortment of ugly stereotypes and ethnic slurs, believe it or not.

Our ancestors must have been crestfallen when that magazine arrived in their mailboxes; the start of Prohibition was still a month away and here was their obituary already written, their livelihoods sent off with a caustic goodbye and good riddance. The Press Democrat fired back with a response from state Board member Charles E. Bundschu and although the letter (transcribed below) could have been stronger in its defense of Italians, it otherwise countered most of the points in the article.

And then the day of Prohibition arrived: January 17, 1920. But instead of the sky falling, something very good and very unexpected happened. Three good things, actually.

Just days after Prohibition officially began, vineyardists found buyers hammering down their doors, offering $25/ton for their 1920 wine grape crop in the autumn. Everyone appeared taken off guard; not only were their grapes still in demand, but that was a premium price. The Press Democrat remarked, “the grape growers of Sonoma county cannot complain of National Prohibition as the price is paid to be more than per ton higher than the average price paid for grapes during the past ten years.” A few days later, that offer was already too low.

As winter turned into spring, the contract price kept climbing: $30 per ton; $40; “Growers Are Refusing $50 Ton for Grapes,” was the PD headline on April 1, which might have seemed like an April Fool’s Day joke, had it been predicted just a couple of months earlier. By early May it was up to $65, and a year later, it would be nearly twice that. The growers who had taken a gamble and not ripped out their vines had now hit the jackpot.

What was going on?

It seems that it was foolish to presume people were going to obey the new law. Even before Prohibition home winemaking was popular (and yes, it was mainly done in Italian households). At end of 1919 at least 30,000 households in Northern California and Nevada were making home wine but they were buying just a fraction of the wine grape crop sold to consumers; most of it was shipped East via refrigerated freight cars. And once Prohibition began and there was no other way to obtain wine, demand for the wine grapes skyrocketed 68 percent over the previous year.³

All of this was legal. There was no restriction in the Volstead Act on growing wine grapes, selling them to a broker who would transport the produce somewhere else in the country where they would be purchased by a consumer in, say, New York City. Sure, it was now against the law for the buyer to allow those grapes to ferment an alcohol content higher than 0.5 (ABW) but hey, who’s to know?

When the Act was made law just a few months before Prohibition, the culture warriors believed it would be tweaked to fix any shortcomings, presumably making it even MORE restrictive. That Country Gentleman article suggested it might be modified to block transport of wine grapes or make it “too dangerous for the householder to manufacture his own wine,” which sounds uncomfortably like tossing out the Fourth Amendment blocks on searches and seizures.

But after having experienced a couple months of “bone dry” Prohibition, public sentiment was starting to shift in the other direction. New Jersey and Wisconsin defied Volstead and authorized sale of light beer. More newspapers began editorializing against Prohibition calling for a national referendum or immediate repeal. With 1920 being a major election year, the Democratic party – still torn between Wet and Dry factions – added a “moist” plank to the party platform which reflected President Wilson’s views that exceptions be made for wine and light beer. (The resolution also cited concerns about “vexatious invasion of the privacy of the home” which suggests people were worried about raids, whether the threat was real or no.)

On July 24 the Internal Revenue Bureau ruled homemade wine and cider could have more than 0.5 percent alcohol as long as it was consumed at home and “non-intoxicating.” Home wine making was now legal, as long as you didn’t make over 200 gallons/year – the equivalent of about 1,000 750ml bottles.

That was the second bit of good news for our grape growers during the early months of Prohibition. The third was the rapid development of commercial dehydrators.

Shipping fresh grapes across the country was always a chancy proposition; the railcars could be delayed because of labor issues, routing problems, overcrowded delivery terminals or a host of other reasons. Growers assumed the entire risk of transportation; if the fruit was spoiled by the time it reached the buyer, they were liable for shipping costs. Among the horror stories was that of a small Alexander Valley vineyard that shipped twelve tons of grapes to New York only to receive a 17¢ check. ⁴

Those risks were reduced significantly if dried grapes could be shipped instead. UC/Davis had been working on perfecting the best formula since the summer of 1919, with the goal of not drying them to the point of becoming raisins but rather to evaporate away the water content, keeping the grape’s color and flavor once it was rehydrated. Charles Bundschu’s letter in the PD mentioned the importance of this; in fact, he predicted everything that would happen in early 1920:

…The demand for dried Wine grapes is so great since Prohibition has become effective that California will not be able to supply the demand. To bring up a very important point, the very same grapes that were formerly used for the legitimate business, are now being dried and sold in small quantities to people who are making their own wines. It is encouraging an illegal business and I would ask whether under these conditions it is better to conduct a business along legitimate lines or whether it is better to force people to violate the laws?…

Read the California Grape Grower newsletter from those months and marvel at how quickly the gloom and despair turned into bullish optimism. Even though the dryers were not cheap and were the size of a two-bedroom bungalow, wineries and investors were gung-ho on building them; a Chicago brokerage spent $35,000 on one at West Eighth street in Santa Rosa. By the 1920 harvest, there were seven dryers in Sonoma and three in Napa county, including Beringer and Gundlach Bundschu.

I’ll wrap up this particular article on that high note from the summer of 1920, as the topic of this series was just the advent of Prohibition. Although I’ll certainly write about our bootlegging days later, for more of what happened locally in the vineyards beyond this point see Vivienne Sosnowski’s book, listed with other reading materials below. But in my prowlings I stumbled across an intriguing rabbit hole that no one has researched (as far as I can tell) and I’m hoping this coda might tempt some other historian to dig deeper into the story of “Vino Sano.”

Although the future of dried wine grapes seemed bright, the demand for them hit the skids after the government sanctioned home winemaking that July, which was followed by ultra-cheap European dried varietals flooding the East Coast markets. Also, the fresh grape shipping situation improved dramatically every year; the railroads kept adding hundreds more refrigerated cars annually and as the war faded in the distance, there was far less scheduling chaos caused by the military commandeering the tracks. By the 1921 harvest there was little interest in drying wine grapes, or at least selling them on the open market – there might have been private contracts. It became a niche market, like making sacramental and kosher wines (legal under Prohibition, but only under special license).

Then in August, 1921, this little ad began appearing in Midwestern and Eastern newspapers:

That San Francisco address belonged to Karl Offer. He was (supposedly) a former German aviator who was awarded an Iron Cross for valor in the 1914 Siege of Tsingtao, settling in San Diego the following year and where he became a dealer in fine German jewelry. After the U.S. entered WWI he was arrested as a German agitator/alleged spy and sent to Ft. Douglas in Utah for the duration of the war. When Offer surfaced in San Francisco during early 1921 he was now a bond trader (particularly German bond futures) and currency speculator (German marks and Russian roubles) running large ads in newspaper business sections.

Most of Offer’s “kick in a brick” ads were in the help-wanted sections as he was seeking salesmen and distributors; his own product ads stopped the next year as Vino Sano dealers began their own regional advertising, followed by him opening storefronts in San Francisco and New York City (and possibly elsewhere). The ads and the package itself included a clever gimmick, warning customers there was a risk the reconstituted juice from the brick could ferment and become alcoholic.

That grape brick concept was simply an act of genius. Fresh wine grapes were only available for a few days in the autumn and you had to have connections to get them, particularly outside of the Bay Area. The bricks were shelf-stable and could be ordered through a grocery store or pharmacy. The markup was also astronomical; as a rule of thumb three pounds of fresh grapes made one gallon of wine, and the wholesale price of dried grapes was 10¢ a pound. Vino Sano agents sold those bricks for up to $2.50 per.

Offer was charged twice for violating the Volstead Act, in 1924 and 1927 and in both cases was acquitted by juries. Let it be noted, however, that he was found guilty of something worse – in 1925 he was charged with misleading investors and lost his bond trading license. In 1942 he was again suspected of being too pro-German and ordered to leave the West Coast as a potential security threat.

I would very much like a researcher to discover where he obtained the dried grapes that his San Francisco factory pressed into bricks. The only article on grape bricks suggests they came from the Beringer winery but that article contains factual errors, among them claiming the bricks were made of “concentrated grape juice” while news coverage during the jury trials clearly stated they were “compressed grapes.”

The big question I hope someone can answer is this: How successful was Vino Sano? Did they manufacture 10,000 bricks? 100,000? A million? More? Sure, the finished product was probably not very good wine unless the home winemaker was very lucky, but more relevant is that their degree of success could be a unique bellwether to what was happening nationwide. I imagine selling a consumer-friendly wine-making kit tapped perfectly into the zeitgeist of the time, with the public growing more rebellious against Prohibition with every passing year.

FURTHER READINGWhen the Rivers Ran Red: An Amazing Story of Courage and Triumph in America’s Wine Country by Vivienne Sosnowski, 2009. A richly detailed look at how the growers and their families were impacted by Prohibition, but is thin on background about what else was going on in the county and nationally, which would have added context. Still highly recommended and one of my favorite books on local history.

Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent, 2010. Very readable and a good companion to the Sosnowski book.

Prohibition: The Era of Excess by Andrew Sinclair, 1962. By far the most thorough book on Prohibition and national events leading to it.

California Grape Grower (newsletter); December 1919 – December 1921. Highly technical articles but worth reviewing for the editorials, harvest reports and ads, plus many anecdotes.

Prohibition as a Democratic Issue (article); Literary Digest, March 20, 1920. The surprisingly vigorous pushback during the early days of Prohibition.

¹ When the Rivers Ran Red: An Amazing Story of Courage and Triumph in America’s Wine Country by Vivienne Sosnowski, 2009

² Statement from the Sonoma County Farm Bureau to President Wilson mentioned in part II: “PRESIDENT TOLD OF VINE AND HOP INDUSTRY HERE”, Press Democrat, August 8 1918

³ The 1919 crop was 128,000 tons and the 1920 estimate was 215,000 tons. The 1921 estimate was 250,000 tons with Sonoma county being the largest producer, despite much of the Northern California crop being lost to a late frost. Household statistics based on those who declared they were making wine under the Wartime Prohibition Act and paid the 16 cents/gallon tax.

⁴ Sosnowski op. cit. pg. 80

Santa Rosa May Be Dry, But Some Have Their Doubts

Is Santa Rosa dry?

The law says it is, but there are some doubters.

Rumor has it that despite the war-time prohibition on ail forms of liquors, whisky is being sold openly at several saloons.

Of course, the question of the legality of 2.75 per cent beer ia being threshed out in the courts and it is openly acknowledged by the saloonmen and city authorities that beer containing that percentage of alcohol can be obtained in any saloon. The city has even licensed dealers to sell this beer, pending federal decision.

But the hard stuff — the distilled spirit of the rye and corn — whisky, which was supposed to have been everlastingly knocked out by the war-time prohibition solar plexus blow, rumor declares is still on a more or less open sale.

In some saloons, it is said, you have to cock your left eyebrow and ask for ginger ale, while in others you ask for whisky and get it.

Rumor also says that one Fourth street saloonman is in more or less of a defiant mood, and has openly issued a defi [sic] to federal officials, declaring he will sell to whoever asks for it, and make a test battle in the courts.

City and county officials seem to have adopted a policy of hands off, in view of the fact that selling of intoxicating liquor is a federal offense, and thus far no federal officers have gotten as far as Santa Rosa in their raids on whisky-selling saloons. Several arrests, however, have been made in San Francisco.

It is pointed out by those interested in suppressing the sale of whisky, that the city has issued no licenses for the sale of this brand of fire-water, and the saloons are operating under another form of license, designed for 2.75 per cent beer.

– Press Democrat, October 2 1919

MAJORITY OF GRAPE MEN ARE CRUSHING THEIR CROP
Precedent Set by Leaders Following Decision of Association Is Being Generally Followed Under Conviction That It Is the Only Procedure Possible to Save Any Part of the Crop.

The majority of the grape growers in Sonoma county are crushing the 1919 vintage, when unable to sell, and some are doing so who could have sold, according to a prominent grape man’s statement here last night.

The growers generally are crushing, considering it the best, and in fact the only possible precedent to follow, this man said, especially in view of the decision of the Sonoma County Grape Growers’ Association that this year’s crop would be crushed and held in reserve until the prohibition question is finally solved.

Most of the wine, in fact all that has been crushed to date, has been made for sacramental purposes, it is said.

With the grape crop coming on rapidly, forcing the necessity of harvesting the grapes, or allowing them to rot on the vines, the growers have feverishly gone ahead to save all possible of their crop by making it into wine, which will not be put on the market or offered for use in any way, until all the fine legal points are established.

All over the county the vineyards are being stripped of their grapes, and in many cases the pickers are being closely followed by other crews, tearing out their vines in anticipation of this being the last crop that will ever be harvested in the county. Those taking out their vines are already laying plans for experimenting with something else, hoping that they will not entirely lose out by prohibition.

– Press Democrat, October 8 1919

BOOZE OF ALL VARIETIES NOW BANNED HERE

Booze of all kinds was absolutely non-procurable in Santa Rosa Wednesday night, due to the passage by Congress of the dry enforcement act over the presidential veto.

Even the lowly 2.75 per cent beer, hitherto on sale in every saloon, was not obtainable.

“No. we have no beer, but we have some very nice soda water,” was the answer made in half a dozen saloons which were open Wednesday. All the other liquor emporiums were as dark as the the outlook of their proprietors.

Some of the saloon proprietors are keeping open, selling soft drinks, to be on the job when war time prohibition is declared off by the signing of the peace treaty. Others who have closed say they will reopen when the saie of liquor is again legal.

But the dry enforcement bill has accomplished one other thing in addition to drying up Santa Rosa — it has made a lot of converts for the early signing of the peace treaty.

– Press Democrat, October 30 1919

Liquor Licenses Are Refused by the City

Despite the fact that several saloon men have applied for liquor licenses the city authorities under the present federal laws have refused to issue any license for the sale of liquor. Most of the saloons in Santa Rosa have been closed, as they have throughout the state, but in a few cases the proprietors, in an effort to retain any possible advantage in case wartime prohibition is annulled before national prohibition goes into effect, have kept their places open and cater to the soft drink trade, although they are said be losing money by doing so.

– Press Democrat, November 5 1919

ENFORCEMENT LAW AND BEER ALCOHOLIC CONTENT DECISIONS NEXT MONDAY
By the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15.—By unanimous decision, the legality of the war-time prohibition act was upheld today by the supreme court. The decision was written by Justice Brandeis and held in effect, however, that the war-invoked “dry” law may be revoked by presidential proclamation of neutralization.

Giving his opinion that the court, however, would not add its opinion regarding the constitutionality of the prohibition enforcement act or on appeal regarding the alcoholic content of beer, leaving those cases to future opinion, which may be handed down next Monday, before the court recesses for the Christmas holidays to January 5.

This decision practically swept away all hopes of a wet Christmas, as the chance of the war-time act being repealed before prohibition takes effect one month from tomorrow was considered remote.

PENALTY ACT IN DOUBT

Upon the court’s decision on the prohibition enforcement law will depend whether the federal government has at hand any legal means for making tho amendment effective.

The constitutionality of wartime prohibition. however, the drys are confident, will keep tho country dry until the amendment is carried into effect by law of its own.

In deciding the question the Supreme Court also dissolved injunctions restraining revenue officials from interfering with the removal from bond of about 70,000,000 gallons of whisky valued at approximately $75,000,000, held by the Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Company of Louisville. Ky.

WAR POWER STILL IN USE

The signing of the armistice did not abrogate the war power of Congress, Associate Justice Brandeis said in reading the decision of the court.

Justice Brandeis said the government did not appropriate the liquor by stopping its domestic sale, as the way was left open for exporting it.

Justice Brandeis also called attention to the continued control of the railroads and reassumption of powers by the government relative to coal and sugar under war acts to show that the government continues to exercise various war powers, despite the signing of the armistice.

The constitutional prohibition amendment is binding on the federal government as well as the states, and supersedes state laws, the court declared.

– Press Democrat, December 16 1919

THE WINE GRAPE RIDDLE BRINGS OUT MANY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

The publishers of the Country Gentleman recently sent Mr. Jason Field, one of their traveling editors, into this section to investigate and write up the present standing of the wine grape industry, and his report has no doubt been read with much interest by their numerous subscribers in this territory, some of whom do not quite agree with him in the results of his findings.

After carefully studying and reviewing the whole situation Mr. Field disposes of the “Riddle” in the following illogical summary:

1. Beverages containing alcohol – which includes wine – cannot be manufactured or sold any more; and

2. Therefore, the wineries will not run and the wine-grape growers must go out of business; but

3. It has not yet been declared illegal to transport either wine grapes in the fresh state, or wine-grape raisins for wine making purposes: and

4. Thousands of tons of grapes and raisins are being sold and shipped to individuals who will make wine of them: and also

5. It may not be illegal for a man to crush grapes in his own house for his own use, even though the juice does ferment; and

6. As it will probably ferment before he drinks it, he may be a violator of the law; but

7. As yet no one seems to be in a position to say that he will even then be interfered with, unless

8. He soaks up a skinfull of the liquor too hastily and then goes out and gets arrested; whereupon

9. It will be asked where he got the intoxicating liquor, and the manufacturer – even himself – can be and will be imprisoned: and meanwhile,

10. What in the name of Sam Hill will he do with his vineyard — root it up and go out of business, or just paddle along and take his chances?

This logic is quite beyond the innocent Italian in Sonoma County, and he is getting wild-eyed trying to understand it.

Mr. Field then concludes his investigations with the following hint of a solution:

It is the little vinyarists [sic] who are hardest hit, naturally. The big holders have capital enough to hold out for a long lime; to go into other lines; to seize shipping opportunities.

The big ones are “hollering” the loudest, and making the most money out of their grapes this year. The little chap who has, because the land was so cheap, jerked his vineyard rigid out of the sage-brush, at the front door of Coyoteville is the one who will go in the wall.

Suppose that the prohibition law is so rigidly enforced as to make it dangerous for the householder to manufacture his own wine, either from fresh wine grapes or dried grapes — thus cutting off all markets for the wine making purposes?

At first glance this appears an unreasonable supposition. Human nature being what it is, and the transition from grape juice to wine being a natural one, it would seem that illicit wine would always be with us. But it is possible for the enforcement officers to make it so difficult to transport the makings that the wine-grape growers could no longer profitably count on that outlet. What then?

There are several possible “outs” for the wine-grape grower with established vines. Few new plantings would be made on such obscure and doubtful chances. They are:

1. Drying by sun and evaporators for use as raisins. We have seen that most wine grapes would not make good raisins. Some would make raisins of fair quality. But this market is not promising.

2. Grape syrups. There is at present no market developed for grape sirups [sic]. It is doubtful if a market could be created in time to do the growers any good. The sirups would have to bring a much larger price than ordinary sirups.

3. Grape juice. Under this head something is going to be done. The market for grape juice has grown by leaps and bounds in the past several years, and the Eastern manufacturers of grape juice foresee a vast demand which Concord vineyardists of the East cannot supply. This is said to be the explanation of the sale of vineyards and wineries to the so-called Virginia Produce Company. I am told that the head of this company is a well-known grape-juice manufacturer.

At present the unfortunate part of it is looked at agriculturally, that the wine-grape growers are in the position of one who is doing something under the blanket instead of in the open. It is not wrong to raise grapes; it is not wrong to send grapes to somebody else; but if wine is made and someone becomes intoxicated, then the finger begins to swing around to the man who raised the grapes.

Subjoined is a copy of an answer to Mr. Field’s version of the “Riddle” which was sent in by our townsman, Mr. C. E. Bundschu.

The Editor.
Country Gentleman,
Philadelphia. Pa.

Dear Sir: —

The articles on the “Wine Grape Riddle” by Jason Field published in your issue of November 15th and 29th have been read with a great deal of interest and I wish to compliment Mr. Field on the data that he has gathered covering this question, but the article is written from a probition [sic] and I therefore am taking the liberty of giving you the other side of the question:

First let us refer to the article in which he writes about the sweet wine industry, which centers in through San Joaquin Valley. It is quite true that in the face of Prohibition legislature, properties have changed hands at unheard of prices; there are two reasons for this: If Mr. Field had only extended his investigation a little farther he would have found out that land values in California have greatly increased since the war, there is a boom at the present time in country lands and prospective buyers are therefore paying exhorbitant prices on land purchases. There is no boom in the sweet wine industry as the manufacture of sweet wine, except non-beverages and medical purposes, is prohibited.

Furthermore the districts where sweet wines were produced are especially well adapted for raisin grapes and the demand for raisins has been an great that prices have advanced from 3 and 4 cents to 13 and 14 cents per pound, and this naturally would be an incentive to purchase vineyards for raisin purposes; a great part or all sweet wine grapes are particularly well adapted for raisins. The Wine grapes that are grown in this section are also easily dried in the sun, which is a very inexpensive process; it is not necessary to put up any dryer or dehydrator. The demand for dried Wine grapes is so great since Prohibition has become effective that California will not be able to supply the demand. To bring up a very important point, the very same grapes that were formerly used for the legitimate business, are now being dried and sold in small quantities to people who are making their own wines. It is encouraging an illegal business and I would ask whether under these conditions it is better to conduct a business along legitimate lines or whether it is better to force people to violate the laws? I say force, because I believe a man is entitled, according to the constitution of this country, to enjoy his glass of wine or glass of beer, the same as any other food, which he has been in the habit of using. Wine is a food, which he has been in the habit of using [sic]. Wine is a food and a temperance drink. There are many foods which are more injurious than wine.

I would also like to enlighten Mr. Field, why Fresno county, which is one of the largest grape producing counties in this State voted “dry.” It is not entirely due to the prices fixed by the California Wine Association, but we have in this State what we call local option, and people in the Fresno district voted dry in order to do away with the road house and the saloon; there was no other alternative, but to either vote the district bone dry, or allow the road house and saloon; and therefore you can readily understand why this section voted dry. The Wines produced in this section are not consumed there, but shipped out, in fact we might say 90 per cent of the wines produced in the State of California are shipped to the Eastern markets.

Referring to the second article on the dry wine districts, Mr. Field admits that a great injustice is done to the Grape grower who was encouraged in the planting of grapes by the United States Government, as well as by our State. The United States Department of Agriculture is still maintaining experimental plots throughout this State and the Government is appropriating funds for the maintenance of these experimental vineyards. On the one hand the Government prohibits the manufacture and sale and on the other hand the Government is leasing land for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the farmer what grapes are best adapted for his particular soil.

I would like to correct an impression, however, that Mr. Field gives, that the Italian dominates the Dry Wine Districts. This is not so; it is true that the Italian is generally employed in wineries and vineyards, but from any ownership stand-point the vineyards in this part of the State are owned by Americans, that is to say generally of foreign extraction, there are French, Swiss, German and Italian. We might say the largest portion is in the favor of French and German-Americans. The pioneers of this industry planted their vineyards in the late 50’s and early 60’s, some of these estates have been handed down to the next generation and some of them are still farmed by the original settler.

It is easy enough to make the statement that the grapes can be uprooted and other crops planted, but this is easier said than done. I would like to point out an instance, and I can mention many more, that are in the same class. A man that has spent a lifetime in setting out a vineyard, perfecting his winery and settled down with a family, now in his declining years is asked to root up the vineyard and plant other crops. A man that has made a specialty of wine grapes is not familiar with other crops and the time that it would take to replant and get returns would be at least from six to seven years, in the meantime. who is to support the family and how is a man able to finance such a change? Then again it is a question of whether the soil will produce other crops. Seventy-five per cent of the vineyards grown in the dry wine districts are grown on land which will produee no other crops, so as to give a man fair returns on his investment.

Mr. Field also mentions in his article that the State of California voted dry. This is not correct, as this State voted wet with a large majority every time this question has come up in the State, but when our State Legislature convened. strange to say the legislature endosed “National Prohibition.” If there is any “Riddles” to be solved I would like to ask Mr. Field this: “Why did our State Legislature vote ‘Dry’ when our State voted ‘wet’”? Exactly what has happened in our State is happening throughout the entire United States. And it is unfortunate that an industry representing our investment of over 150,000,000 dollars in this State alone, should be used as a political football.

Feeling that some of your readers would like to hear from the grape growers view point, I remain

Yours very sincerely.
C. E. Bundschu.

– Press Democrat, December 24 1919

Wine Company Bids $40 Ton for Grapes

SEBASTOPOL – The California Wine Association offered $40 per ton for grapes that crushed into 217,000 gallons of wine in the Sebastopol winery, according to General Manager F. P. Kelly…Wine men consider that this offer shows conclusively that the entire crush will be sold.

– Press Democrat, December 27 1919

One million dollars’ worth of wine, said to be the largest single shipment of wine ever made from California, left San Francisco for the Orient last Saturday. Included in the shipment will be 10,000 cases of the Golden State, extra dry, champagne, made at the California Wine Association’s big winery at Asti. Besides the champagne there will be 10,000 barrels of other wines. The wine went out on the Robert Dollar and will include some of the choicest wines ever produced in California.

– Sotoyome Scimitar, January 2 1920

Must Have Licenses To Sell Near Beer

Saloon proprietors and restaurant owners who sell liquor containing one-half of 1 per cent alcohol will be required to secure a liquor license, according to a statement yesterday made by Commissioner of Public Health and Safety G. C. Simmons at the meeting of the city commission.

Simmons asked that the city collector furnish him a list of all dealers who have not secured their licenses for the first quarter of the year. The city ordinance regulating the liquor traffic provides that a license must be secured for the serving of any intoxicating liquors, even to malt liquors of whatsoever nature.

– Sacramento Union, January 3 1920

COURT RULES 2.75 BEER IS ILLEGAL BREW

In Two Decisions Last Hopes Of Wets Are Swept Aside: Four Justices In Dissent
Anti – Saloon League Leader Calls Ruling “Sweeping Victory” For Prohibition

WASHINGTON—By a margin of one vote, the Supreme Court upheld today the right of Congress to define intoxicating liquors insofar as applied to war time prohibition.

In a 5 to 4 opinion rendered by Associate Justice Brandeis, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of provisions in the Volstead prohibition act prohibiting the manufacture of beverages containing 1/2 of one per cent or more of alcohol. Associate Justices Day, Van DeVanter, McReynolds, and Clark dissenting.

Validity of the Federal prohibition constitutional amendment and of portions of the Volstead act affecting its enforcement were not involved in the proceedings, but the opinion was regarded as so sweeping as to leave little hope among “wet” adherents. Wayne B. Wheeler, general counsel for the Anti-Saloon League of America, hailed it as a “sweeping victory” and in a statement tonight said the only question left open by the court now is whether the eighteenth amendment is of a nature that can be considered as a Federal amendment and whether it was properly adopted.

– Chico Record, January 6 1920

HOP PRICES ASSURED FOR NEXT THREE YEARS

WOODLAND—That the present hop prices will be maintained for some time despite prohibition is the conclusion of a number of Yolo growers, Anson Casselman, a local rancher, has filed a contract with Le Pierce, county Recorder, for the sale of 120,000 pounds of hops to Strauss and Company of London England…

– Press Democrat, January 15 1920

Saloons Are Fast Disappearing Here

They said it couldn’t be done, but it was done, and the evidences of the passing of the saloon and hard liquor are multiplying in Santa Rosa and other cities of the land every day.

Not only have the saloons passed into history, with the amendment to the federal constitution, but even the places where the saloons were located are passing into the hands of other businesses, in no way related to the former trade.

Santa Rosa saloon sites will be occupied by restaurants, candy factories and candy stores, and even by real estate offices, according to facts learned Wednesday in a canvass of the city.

In only a few cases are saloon owners hanging onto their leases of Santa Rosa property, with any idea that they might be able to return to business.

“It’s all over, so why worry about coming back,” declared one former saloon proprietor. “I, for one, am going to look around and get into something else.”

“Why hurry?” was the query on the other hand from another saloonman. “I’m going to stay open, sell whatever I can sell, and see what happens. I won’t starve for several months even if I don’t pay expenses.”

A hurried survey of the situation Wednesday showed something like this has happened and is going to happen to saloons in Santa Rosa:

Jake Luppold’a famous “Senate” saloon in Main street is closed. Jake says his plans are unsettled, but he does not think the saloon business will ever come back.

Scotty Tickner has opened a restaurant in his former “Recall” saloon in Fourth street.

Across the street Hans Alapt has likewise changed the Eagle Bar into a restaurant.

The Rose Bar, next to the Rose Theater, has become the realty office of Garrett Kidd and Elmer Crowell.

The Grapevine, Mendocino avenue’s only saloon in recent years, will be remodeled into a restaurant for George R. Edwards, whose Lunchery will then move across the street.

The Brandel wholesale and retail liquor store in Fourth street is to open about February 1 as a grocery under the conduct of McCarcy & Woods.

Bouk’s candy factory is already established in the quarters in Fifth street formerly occupied by the Brown & son liquor store.

Bacigalupi & Son, grocers, have already absorbed the site at Fourth and Davis street, once occupied by a saloon.

A fruit and poultry market occupies the old Magnolia site at the corner of Fourth and Washington streets.

Fire wiped out of memory the States formerly the Germania, hotel and bar, near the Northwestern station.

And so the story goes. About half of the old saloon sites are already wiped off the map. More are in process of change, and of the few remaining open as cigar stores and soft drink emporiums, like Thomas Gemetti in Third street, their plans are unsettled.

Landlords are delighted with the manner in which the old saloon sites are filling up, and tenants are glad to be able to secure desirable locations.

– Press Democrat, January 22 1920

BUYERS ARE IN THE FIELD OFFERING $25 FOR GRAPES

Higher Prices Than Have Been Paid for Years Are Now Being Offered and Prompt Vineyardists to Trim Their Vines, Plow Their Land and Get Ready for 1920 Crop Despite “Dry” Era.

With buyers already in the field offering $25 per ton and boxes for handling the crop, the grape growers of Sonoma county cannot complain of National Prohibition as the price is paid to be more than per ton higher than the average price paid for grapes during the past ten years.

Several buyers are out seeking contracts for the 1920 black grape crop at $25 per ton with $5 cash advance on signing the contract and $20 on delivery of the grapes in the fall. With the exception of the last year, when somewhat higher prices contingent on the disposal of the wine prevailed, grapes have not averaged, it is said, $20 per ton in past years.

While it is said the present price is experimental and will be only for this year’s crop it is known that there is a movement afoot to stabilize prices of grapes at approximately that figure in the hopes of maintaining the land value in the county. If it works out at a conference to be held by big growers and firms seeking the grapes in the near future it will mean that the grape industry will become a fixed one similar to hops with one, two and three year contracts to the growers.

It is understood that the grapes are being purchased with the view of drying and shipping abroad. The price of shooks and freight rates will have a heavy bearing on the industry. It has been reported that the lines may require prepayment of all freights which would add a big item to the expense of handling the grapes in transcontinental shipment.

The prices for this year, at least, are not at all dark for grape growers with the price already fixed at $25 per ton and there will be few who will dig out their vines as long as contracts can be made at that price. Reports from various points in Sonoma county this week are to the effect that vineyardists are already trimming their vines, ploughing their land, and getting in readiness for the new crop. In some cases, however, growers are taking out the roots and putting in prunes and other trees, especially in the low lands and on good hill lands.

– Press Democrat, January 22 1920

John Peterson, wine manufacturer of Santa Rosa, has sold 143,000 gallons of wine for $74,000 to the California Wine Association. Price for a single gallon was 55c. The wine will be used for sacramental and non-beverage purposes.

– Petaluma Daily Morning Courier, May 4 1920

GRAPE MEN OFFERED SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS

A number of vineyardists have this week been approached by buyers who have offered them from sixty to sixty-five dollars a ton for their coming crops of wine grapes. It is understood that some growers have accepted these prices, while others are disposed to hold and see the results when Grape Growers Exchange is organized. It is slated that permanent organization of the Exchange is likely to occur very soon, the time depending upon how quickly the required acreage of grapes is signed up in membership.

– Press Democrat, June 30 1920

DEHYDRATOR TO BE BUILT HERE, COSTS $35,000
International Brokerage Company of Chicago Buys Wine Association Site; Also to Build a Dryer in County.

Santa Rosa is to have a new fruit dehydrator. to be built immediately by the International Brokerage company, said to be the largest handlers of California grapes in the United States.

The company, which has its main offices in Chicago. has purchased the California Wine Association’s site at West Eighth street and the N. W. P. railroad and will begin the construction of the first unit, a $35,000 building, immediately. The first unit will be used for grapes and all other classes of fruits…

The first unit will have a capacity of fifty tons, and further units will be built as fast as the tonnage warrants, it is announced, with a possibility of a total capacity of 500 tons every twelve hours.

The company contemplates» the construction of another dryer in the county for packing and distribution.

The local dehydrator will eventually handle all products grown in this part of the state, including vegetables, green fruits and dried products. Other dehydrators owned by the company are already being operated in the central part of the state. The plant will operate the year round and is expected to have a large payroll. All the products will bear the names of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county.

– Press Democrat, June 30 1920

ONWARD, PROHIBITION SOLDIERS

March 30, 2019May 28, 2019 Jeff Elliott 2 Comments

On January 17, 1920, Prohibition came to Sonoma county, as it did the rest of the land. While San Francisco marked the event by carousing and debauchery excessive even by Barbary Coast standards, the milestone passed with little notice up here. At midnight some bozo on Western avenue in Petaluma began shooting in the air and managed to knock out a PG&E powerline, likely pitching that side of town into darkness. With church bells clanging in celebration, residents suddenly without lights probably wondered if the end of the world had come – and many in wine-making, wine-loving Sonoma county were nervous that it had.

This article is part of a series on the 1920s culture wars, an era with numerous parallels to America today – particularly now that the nation is as divided as it was during the ignoble experiment which was Prohibition.

Much has been written about Prohibition; there’s a substantial number of books and internet resources on the topic although all seem to share the same flaw – events before it started are given short shrift and then it’s quickly on to Chicago gangsters, bathtub gin and the jazz age. You know: The fun stuff.

But take a step further back and a bigger picture emerges: Fear and loathing of alcohol was the moralistic glue holding together the various threads in America’s culture wars. Many preachers howled liquor must be scourged from the earth via a rigorous crackdown by law enforcement, which was a militant stance shared with the revived Ku Klux Klan – and while you were at their lecture, the boyz in the hoods also had a few other things to tell you about immigrants and white nationalism. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union didn’t just demonize demon rum; the group had a “purity lecturer” who addressed their 1913 convention in Santa Rosa, where she spoke about “social immorality” and “race betterment” (eugenics, in other words).

Here I’ve written dozens of articles about doings regarding alcohol both trivial and notable, such as the anti-suffrage propaganda that women would vote as a bloc to ban alcohol and that the first speakeasy in the county was the Electric Hotel in Forestville. Below the main stories are arranged to show how the prohibition movement gained steam in Sonoma county; the article following this one takes us from 1918 to the start of Prohibition and shows the early impact it had here. Spoiler alert: Prohibition generally turned out to be a good thing for Sonoma county.

As everyone probably knows, the “dry” prohibitionists saw themselves as crusaders fighting to save the nation; in Sonoma county and elsewhere there were Protestant activists eager to reform the bejesus out of drinkers. But until I began assembling this article I didn’t grasp how much of their clout leaned on intimidation; their bullying tactics were shockingly similar to the incivility found in today’s politics.

The Santa Rosa papers of the day seemed taken aback by church leaders mobilizing their flocks to pack City Council chambers (although that would hardly seem unusual now) and were unsettled that they would use children to disrupt public meetings with demonstrations. But it truly crossed a line when ministers did not shy from making threats – that they had better get their way or they would direct their congregation to inflict pain on their foes in the community with economic boycotts, blacklists and recall petitions. As noted below, when one of the most respected men in town simply remarked at a City Council meeting that history showed prohibition laws never succeed, he was attacked personally and shamed by a preacher.

There was no equivalent “wet” crowd in Sonoma county pushing back against them. Part of the reason was likely fear, but until 1918 most people here did not have to choose sides; there’s no evidence the public body was worked up about banning alcohol, either pro or con. When drinking holes were shut down it was because of specific vice complaints such as the place abetting prostitution or being a public nuisance. Roadhouses were closed after an uptick in drunken driving and because they were sometimes close enough to town to put constrains on development.

Before Prohibition Santa Rosa was always a saloon town – during the peak years of the early 1910s there were over forty places downtown where a fellow could belly up to the bar as early as 6am. Sure, some of the barroom traffic was driven by this being the county seat, but there also had to be lots of hometown support to have so many bartenders going to work even before roosters were up in winter.

The interior of Senate Saloon as shown in the Santa Rosa Republican, November 20, 1913. TOP: The Buckhorn Saloon in Sebastopol, c. 1902 (Sonoma County Library)

Following the 1906 earthquake saloons were ordered closed for about a month and then allowed to reopen during daylight hours, soon after stretching the times to 6am – 8pm. When the saloon ordinance was considered again the following year, the City Council was surprised to find their meeting room mobbed with churchfolk demanding limited hours and Sunday closures. Two ministers there were spotted making a list of everyone attending (“to keep a record of the names of the people we saw” and was definitely not gonna be used as a blacklist, no sir) and at the followup Council meeting a few days later a preacher boomed their anti-saloon crusade “is a fight to the death!” He then insulted former Judge Barham by sneering that his son “…was now in an insane asylum, sent there by drink.” The Press Democrat commented, “As the last words were uttered, one could have heard a pin drop, so tense was the feeling.” The old man stood and walked out of the room in tears.

The dry crusaders lost that round in 1907, but three years later had better luck in Sebastopol, where they hectored the town into raising the annual liquor license from $200 to $1,000. Five saloons immediately shut their doors, not counting the three Chinese and Japanese places where liquor was served – those were closed automatically by another proviso in the new law which ruled no license should be granted to “Oriental residents.” (Liquor was already outlawed in Sonoma County for Native Americans; since 1908 you could be fined $500 and sent to jail for six months for selling alcohol to anyone with just one-fourth Indian blood.)

That was followed by mixed temperance success in 1912, starting with a portion of West County voting for prohibition (more of an issue about farm workers and real estate values) followed by a countywide ban on the sale of alcohol anywhere outside of major towns. That might seem like a moral victory for the drys because it closed 110 roadhouses, but as mentioned above there were public safety and economic reasons. Country hotels could still get a liquor license and a Grand Jury the next year found barkeeps trying to qualify by claiming tents, sheds and stables as hotel rooms. (The winner in this game of chutzpah was Guerneville’s main drinking spot, the Louvre, which insisted every guest room in town was part of their “hotel.”) Still, the prohibitionists chalked up the roadhouse ban as a big win for Team Sobriety.

That was also the first year women could vote in California, and about twenty towns had ballot items in 1912 to decide if their community would go dry. Cloverdale voted for leaders who promised to clean up the saloons – particularly gambling and serving liquor to minors – but rejected outright prohibition by an almost 2:1 majority. Overall, about half of the towns voting on alcohol went dry; in the Bay Area, only Los Gatos and Mountain View closed their saloons. That election showed women did not vote as an anti-alcohol bloc after all; “FEMALE OF SPECIES AS THIRSTY AS THE MALE,” quipped the Santa Rosa Republican in a headline.

Now the teetotalers were on a roll; in 1913 the Board of Supervisors amended the liquor ordinance so there could be no booze sold within fifty feet of place where dances were held. I’m confident their vote was not at all affected by what happened two weeks earlier, when a recall effort was launched against the Sonoma Valley supervisor charging he was “guilty of misconduct in office” for not demonstrating enough anti-roadhouse enthusiasm. The temperance side got locals to sign their recall petition by spreading lies that the supervisor was a drunk who had accepted “a sack of money” from Fetters Springs to obtain a liquor license.

And finally the league of morals and piety managed to get their Sunday closures. All major towns in the county tried it on a voluntary basis starting in 1916, with Santa Rosa being the only place where every saloon was shut down for the full day – saloons elsewhere in the county chose to close for the day, open late and close early, or keep their usual hours.

When Santa Rosa saloon owners made noises about Sunday reopening the PD reported several preachers met with the mayor. A “leading Santa Rosa minister” did not hesitate to threaten they would bring their well-funded state organization to town and make this place as dry as Death Valley. “If a move is started to reopen Sundays we will call an election and will bring all of the state forces of the Anti-Saloon League to this city and put up the strongest fight that has ever been waged in this city against the liquor interests. We have no doubt whatever as to the results of the election.” (Nice little town you got here. It would be a shame.) The saloons remained closed on Sundays and the next year the City Council passed an ordinance requiring it.

This brings us to the chaotic year of 1918. With the country now fully involved in the Great War, the federal government had given itself broad powers to ration and restrict goods, as well as creating new police powers to enforce those rules. Schools, military camps and any factories involved with war production were now surrounded by a five-mile radius “moral zone” where alcohol was banned. Propaganda from the Committee on Public Information not only made hate and fear of all things German into a patriotic duty, but also borrowed old tropes from the temperance movement to demonize everything to do with drinking.

With drys controlling the legislatures in most states as well as Congress, Prohibition was fast becoming America’s de facto policy even before the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified. Over the following two years it became like a runaway train; many tried to stop it (including President Woodrow Wilson) and failed to even slow it down. And during that time the nation became increasingly polarized as Americans found themselves being forced to choose a tribe as Prohibition became more of a certainty.

In the glum final days before Prohibition began, Sonoma county and other places in wine country pondered what kind of future awaited, with every option looking risky – and some certainly illegal. But then on Christmas Eve 1919, the Press Democrat published a remarkable letter from Charles E. Bundschu, which showed there was indeed a path forward.

NEXT: WINTER IS COMING: THE YEAR BEFORE PROHIBITION

THE ANTI-VAXXERS OF 1920

March 18, 2019March 18, 2019 Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

The past is just a story we keep telling ourselves.

That’s a throwaway line from a recent film, “Her” (good movie) and not entirely original; “[something is] a story we tell ourselves” first appeared around 1960 and has become exponentially more popular since then, as shown by Google’s Ngram Viewer. What makes this version memorable, however, is that it’s uniquely wrong.

History (for the most part) is a story we DON’T keep telling ourselves. We only talk about an event when it’s big and momentous or directly related to our lives in the here and now. A more accurate version of the quote would be, “The past is just a story we keep forgetting to tell ourselves” and as a result, we don’t learn from the past and find ourselves repeating it. History is not a guide to understand our march toward the future; history is a treadmill.

This article is part of a series on the 1920s culture wars, an era with numerous parallels to America today – and no issue has found itself resonating again as much as the anti-vaccination movement. I’ve written twice before about the “antis” of a century ago (here’s part one and part two) but to recap and expand:

The only vaccine that existed in the early 20th century was against smallpox (MMR, HepB, DTaP, RV or any of the other modern vaccines were decades away). Since 1889 California had required all children to present a smallpox vaccination certificate when they registered for school. Opponents lobbied Sacramento to pass a couple of bills repealing the law but governors vetoed the legislation both times. The state Supreme Court upheld the requirement in 1904 and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the same way the following year. Yet the anti-vaccinationists never gave up; they kept forming grassroots anti chapters, signing repeal petitions and writing letters. At the start of every school year some parents would keep their kids at home or protest to the school board – some apparently not over vaccine anxiety but because they couldn’t afford to consult a doctor. More on this in a moment.

At the same time a new anti-vaccine ally popped up in California: The chiropractors.

Over a century ago there were some three dozen types of physicians; some were licensed in some states, with many like Mrs. Preston of Cloverdale, operating in a gray area by claiming they were not really practicing medicine. Among the fields of quackery were eclecticism (adjusting the 12 “tissue salts” in the body), electropathy, homeopathy, hydropathy, vitaopathy, psychiropathy (apparently a combo of hypnotism with massage) and naturopathy.

Chiropracty stood out for several reasons, particularly because a treatment could result in immediate pain relief in some cases. They also had more training than other alternative physicians, spending a year at the Palmer School of Chiropractic in Iowa. But as noted in a 1921 exposé written by a member of the California state medical board, no applicants at the time were turned away and not even required to have a grammar school education. There was an emphasis on teaching salesmanship and how to use publicity, with the school running a large printing office to create newspaper advertising and pamphlets. The message they were selling was that chiropracty could cure any disease and conventional medicine was useless.¹

The first chiropractor appeared in the Bay Area in 1904 and one set up office in Santa Rosa five years later. By 1922 there were seven in the City of Roses, most of them clustered in the new Rosenberg building at the corner of Fourth and Mendocino. They distinguished themselves from quack healers using gimmicks and sold themselves as pioneers of a new wave of medicine embracing up-to-date technology – note the ad below for the “X-ray chiropractor.” They were men of science whose livelihood depended upon peddling notions that germs didn’t cause disease and vaccines were a hoax.

: George Von Ofen was not Santa Rosa’s first chiropractor but he was the most prominent by 1922, running these large display ads in the Press Democrat

Their basic text, the 1906 “Science of Chiropractic,” denounced vaccinations as dangerous and often lethal. (Don’t miss the long section on sales and marketing where students were promised they would make lots of money.) Written by chiropractics founder Daniel David Palmer – who had earlier claimed he possessed magnetic hands – the book was filled with dangerous misinformation. Smallpox was not contagious (he said it’s spread by bedbugs) and spinal adjustments could cure polio, asthma and cancers (which were caused by “too much heat produced by calorific nerves”). It spread fear about vaccines with its heart-wrenching photos of deceased children along with anecdotes from their bereaved parents and by making outrageous statements which were not remotely true, such as “[vaccination] has now been made a crime in England”.

It’s surely no coincidence the antis’ literature soon began to mimic his style. There was more hyperbole (a 1907 letter in the Santa Rosa Republican claimed “vaccination is responsible for more or less of leprosy”) and conspiracy-think: Doctors were trying to bamboozle people by using “cooked-up statistics,” all in order to perform a large scale experiment on the public and/or make themselves rich on fees from giving injections. To support their case, the antis followed Palmer’s example by leaning hard on unverifiable anecdotes and outright lying about events – see sidebar.

–

MR. TAYLOR’S DECEITS

The antis loved quoting experts, as long as they knew nothing about public health medicine or were comfortably deceased. The PD printed a letter in 1913 from Samuel Taylor of the California Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League which claimed to quote “noted physicians” such as Dr. A. Vogt of Berne University, who supposedly examined the records of 400,000 vaccinations and lost all confidence that smallpox vaccination worked. “Vaccination is a curse,” another doc supposedly said. Taylor never revealed he apparently rustled his info from pamphlets of earlier anti-vaccinationists and the supposed quotes related back as far as the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. This little assortment of dismal tidbits can be found reprinted in American newspapers through the early 1950s.

The Press Democrat letter was also notable because it closed with an anecdote which had nothing to do vaccination, but revealed a sophisticated understanding of how propaganda works:

Just a hint to parents. In Winnetka, Illinois, girls in the new Trier High School were compelled to submit to complete physical examination. They were taken to the gymnasium and stripped of all their clothing. In the presence of other girls they were examined. A request from their parents to excuse them, and a physician’s certificate were ignored. The Inspector and the school authorities held themselves superior to both parents and family physician. The girls were led to the gymnasium and compelled to submit. When a protest was filed on the ground that the Schools were free and no physical examination could be required as a qualification of admission, the newspapers published the story. The board of education met, and decided that the physical examination was not required for admission to the high school, which was public and free.

In truth, there was a complaint from one 16 year-old girl who signed up for a physical education class; she and about ten other girls were brought to the female instructor’s office and told to change into robes, as they needed to be checked for skin diseases before being allowed to use the swimming pool. The facts were altered to evoke a reader’s feelings of disgust and anger – emotions which are well-known for their success at leading to people develop strong negative opinions about something.² Taylor’s goal was to polarize the public’s views against schoolkids being “compelled to submit” to authorities for medical reasons.

While they always played the underdog, the antis rarely lost. In 1910 they won a surprise victory when a Superior Court judge ruled the vaccination law only applied to students in public schools; the decision caused excitement statewide with the Press Democrat printing the story at the top of the front page. (The judge also said there was no need for enforcement as there was no epidemic at the time, revealing his bias in favor of the anti-vaccinationists.)

Less than a year later they won a bigger prize. The state made vaccination optional, and any family with “conscientious scruples against vaccination” could opt-out as long as they submitted a no-consent form at the start of the school year. The new law declared any students not vaccinated would be blocked from attending only in the case of an epidemic.

Smallpox cases quickly began to increase. Over the next eighteen months there were 279 reported cases in the state with at least ten deaths (that was up to March, 1913; final statistics for that year alone show 800 cases and 15 dead). In Berkeley, five of the eight people who contracted smallpox died. Unbelievably, propagandist Samuel Taylor put a positive spin on this news: “The percentage was very small, about one case to every eight thousand inhabitants.” Not reassured, over a thousand UC/Berkeley students rushed to get revaccinated or receive their first vaccine.

Taylor, always a publicity hound, also pushed his way into the newspapers during a dramatic 1914 incident in Oakland. It was discovered that a conductor on the train coming from Oregon was infected and the cars were sidetracked before reaching the station. Oakland health officer Dr. Allen Gillihan, with assistants and police, boarded the train and forcibly vaccinated the 56 passengers. (Two mothers with small children refused and were not vaccinated.) Taylor made the papers by telling the press an assemblyman was going to introduce an emergency bill to have manslaughter brought against Dr. Gillihan should any of the passengers die because of the vaccine – although odds of which were nil.

For the rest of the 1910s all was (mostly) quiet on the anti front – nothing more can even be found from the very vocal Mr. Taylor. “The number of parents who are conscientiously opposed to vaccination has dwindled from an alarmingly large number to practically none at all,” remarked the Press Democrat in 1919. That year over 500 children received vaccinations paid for by the Santa Rosa school district, so the expense of a doctor’s visit must have played a significant part in earlier protests. Dr. Gillihan – who became Santa Rosa’s health officer not long after the train vaccination – was now an inspector for the State Board of Health, and similarly vaccinated 1,800 in Chico in one week. There he was charged with battery over not having a parent’s vaccination consent, which shows there were still diehards.

And that brings us to the watershed year of 1920. The California ballot that year must have puzzled voters. Amid the usual assortment of items regarding taxes and bonds were two propositions which we would today consider feel-good questions. One seemed to oppose the torture of animals; the other stopped schools and the state government from discriminating against sick kids. Who could oppose things like that?

Although the items seemed harmless enough, on closer look a more distressing agenda appeared. Prop. 6 would have made vaccination entirely voluntary, turning it into a “don’t ask, don’t tell” issue for schools. Prop. 7 would block all medical research using animals as well as prohibiting smallpox vaccines because it required extracting serum from living cows.

We can’t be sure who paid to organize the signature campaigns to get these on the ballot, but from newspaper ads before the election there was backing from the usual American Medical Association foes, including Los Angeles chiropractors, the Anti-Vivisection Society and proto-libertarian national groups such as the American Medical Liberty League, which wanted absolutely no government involvement with medicine. And because this was during the hyper-patriotic culture war, ads and endorsements were wrapped in the flag and touted the issues as about “medical freedom.”³

(RIGHT: A deceptive ad from the antis intended to confuse voters. If it had passed, the new law would have blocked all means to stop an epidemic except via aggressive quarantines. Petaluma Argus, Nov. 1, 1920)

There were two other related propositions: Number 5 would create a state board of chiropractors to license themselves (something sought for years via the legislature or voters) and number 8, which regulated opiates and cocaine – curiously, it allowed doctors to prescribe the drugs to addicts, but any medicinal use required filing a report to the state pharmacy board.

A speaker from a public health group came to Santa Rosa and spoke on these four proposals, which he dubbed the “Quack Quartette.” His comments (transcribed below) explain the awfulness in all but the drug item. To that I’ll add only the perspective that the chiropractors had been pushing hard for their own licensing board since 1914, and it’s easy to see why; a report from the State Board of Medical Examiners found 2 out of 3 couldn’t pass an examination on basic anatomy.

The good news was that the anti-vaccination proposition lost by 56 percent (the chiropractor and vivisection amendments also failed to pass). The bad news is that the legislators still gave the antis their victory.

Changes to the state vaccination law in 1921 no longer required teachers to collect vaccination certificates or non-consent slips. If a child in the school district caught smallpox only those who were unvaccinated and exposed to the sick kid would be sent home for quarantine. As it was now impossible for the school to know who was vaccinated and who was not, what did they do? “Students, little Tommy has smallpox and everyone who hasn’t been vaccinated gets to stay home for two weeks. Can I see a show of hands?” That worked out swell, I bet.

There were now regularly thousands of cases every year in the state.⁴ California was fortunate that only the milder form of smallpox was found spreading. Sonoma county was extraordinarily lucky; the only child who became ill here in the early 1920s was a boy in Penngrove. “This is the first case of smallpox in this vicinity for some years and it is causing a scare because smallpox is rapidly gaining in the state owing to carelessness in vaccination and it is serious in several parts of California,” the Petaluma Argus remarked. “There is more smallpox now than for many years and it is increasing at an alarming rate while the illness is more severe than it has been for years and there have been numerous deaths.” That year 56 people died in the state, the highest since before the turn of the century.

There were no more anti-vaccination protests, of course; they had been given everything they ever wanted.

For those who embrace science and believe it’s not a good idea for people to unnecessarily get sick and die, this has been a depressing story – and it gets worse. Remember Dr. A. Vogt and the other vaccine skeptics from the 1870s who were quoted by Taylor in his letter to the PD? Today you can find many of those exact same quotes rehashed in brand new anti-vaxx books and recent websites – although now scrubbed of dates and any other historical context. Apparently Dr. Vogt is still gnashing his teeth over vaccines some 150 years after his heyday.

Maybe there are lessons to glean from the anti-vaccination squabbles of that era, but caution is needed; as a starting point, all of us should have some empathy for the antis prior to 1914 (well, all except for Mr. Taylor). Had I lived back then I might have felt leery about smallpox vaccination, but not because I believed vaccines were phony. There was a certain amount of risk in any doctor visit because medicine was then still in a generally barbaric state – no antibiotics, poor understanding of infection prevention and primitive test equipment for diagnostics.

Then there was often a question of whether any particular vaccination worked; that article about the 279 smallpox cases revealed about eight percent had been vaccinated, but not successfully. The failures could have been because the culture was dead, was low potency or the patient’s immune response was too strong. But it took a day or three and an expert eye to tell if a proper pustule had developed, which might mean another visit by the doctor. Also, an additional eight percent of the cases had been vaccinated in childhood but immunity in those vaccines lasted less than a dozen years.

And let’s concede some people really did die because of being vaccinated, although even the diehard antis never claimed there were very many (in New York state the ratio was reportedly five in a million in the late 1910s). They didn’t know how to sterilize the live animal serum extracted from cow/calf lymph glands until 1914 and the other vaccine source was using a fresh scab from someone with the disease – certainly a chance of infection either way.

Despite all those little risks, the odds of dying from the more aggressive form of smallpox was about one in four, so vaccination was always the wisest course for anyone thinking straight. But none of that mattered because the antis had a simple and effective counterargument – it just didn’t make sense to expose healthy people to a disease in order to prevent them from later getting sick. That’s the most common message repeated in their letters and pamphlets, often with the vaccine being scorned as “filthy,” “disgusting,” “rotten” and see above re: disgust being a most effective way to shape a negative opinion.

The anti groups and the chiropractors effectively won the fight through manipulating fears, but the irony was that the champions of vaccines had a much more powerful weapon of this type which wasn’t used – horrific photos of children infected with smallpox. Had these been as well circulated as the antis’ pamphlets, the public would have begged for mass vaccinations. Here’s an example, and I’m linking to a Snopes.com fact-check page to assure Gentle Reader this is not a pre-Photoshop fake image. On that page click through their link to the “Atlas of Clinical Medicine, Surgery, and Pathology” to see more, if you have the stomach.

Sometimes efforts were made to get these images into view, only to find them thwarted by antis. In June 1913 the Berkeley Board of Health wanted to post photos of smallpox victims at city hall but an anti councilman blocked the effort, saying it was “evident intention of frightening people into an adoption of the unprovable theory that vaccination prevents smallpox.”

All of this resonates with the anti-vaxx dilemma today. Scientists are continually publishing studies showing modern vaccines cause no harm (PARTICULARLY NO INCREASE IN AUTISM) but that information is ignored by those endlessly tormented by the fear in the air. I visited scores of anti-vaxx websites this week (there are reportedly about 500). Want to know what I found? Not reasoned arguments refuting the science studies – but stock photos of babies crying and cringing from a doctor while receiving a shot. Hello, emotional triggers.

And just as the Press Democrat innocently became an accomplice by printing the antis’ propaganda in 1913, today Facebook and other social media are complicit in spreading misinformation. As of this writing (2019) anti-vaxxers have gamed Amazon to push anti-vaccine books by swarming the site with bad reviews for pro-vaccine books.

Thus far the year 2019 is looking a lot like 1912 in the last century’s culture wars, when parents were increasingly opting-out of smallpox vaccinations – which led to the 1,100 percent rise in smallpox cases over the following decade. And now there’s a skyrocketing resurgence of measles because there are regional pockets where parents are likewise choosing to opt-out by claiming religious or moral exemptions. Will the unease of a few again outweigh the needs of the many?

If history is indeed a treadmill, brace for a near future where old childhood diseases come roaring back and common ones increase by over a thousand percent. To pretend that can’t happen is folly.

¹ The Chiropractic Problem; Dr. Charles B. Pinkham, Secretary-Treasurer, Board of medical examiners, state of California; American Medical Association Bulletin; January 1921

² How Emotional Frames Moralize and Polarize Political Attitudes; Scott Clifford; Political Psychology; 2018

³ Medical Liberty: Drugless Healers Confront Allopathic Doctors, 1910–1931; Stephen Petrina; Journal of Medical Humanities; 2008 (Nothing specific to California, but good background on the American Medical Liberty League and National League for Medical Freedom)

⁴ Smallpox Deaths/Cases per year, 1918-1925: 3/1016, 5/2002, 7/4492, 21/5579, 20/2129, 1/2026, 56/9445, 58/4921. California. Dept. of Public Health Biennial Report, Volumes 26-30

(ABOVE: Rally of the Anti-Vaccination League of Canada in Toronto, November 13, 1919. The “German born” sign refers to Germany making smallpox vaccinations compulsory in 1874. As this rally was held just a year after the end of WWI, the message is clearly intended to associate the public’s lingering hatred of Germany with vaccinations)

FIGHTING VACCINATION.

It is passing strange that Berkeley, a community of more than average intelligence, lying as it does in the very shadow of the university, is the center and hotbed of the anti-vaccination movement. There are, it is true, some other advocates of the spread of smallpox in other parts of the state. Santa Cruz has a small colony, and Los Angeles, which is the home of isms and schisms, only second to San Diego, has also a few friends of the dread disease; but Berkeley has the doubtful honor of being the center of the movement to prevent the stamping out of smallpox; and already, the primaries being over, has started once more to carry out its ideas at the expense of the health of the people of the state. Once more the fight for safety must be begun also.

The sole argument the antis have to offer is that some children have died from the use of bad vaccine, and that others have contracted serious diseases from the use of impure scabs. No one will deny either contention, and if it were simply a question of insisting that the best of vaccine should always be used and that the physician should be held responsible for the condition of the matter and of the instruments he uses, there would be no dispute over the subject anywhere in the state. But with the logic of fanaticism, the Berkeleyites insist that no one shall be vaccinated because some have died and others have been made ill as a result of carelessness. They insist that smallpox shall not be stopped: that all the children !n the state shall be exposed to danger and disfigurement because some few persons do not want their children protected. The vast majority of the people of the country, of the civilized world, believe in vaccination, and yet the infinitesimal minority, against all experience, against the well established facts in the matter, against every teaching of modern medicine, insist that the vast majority must suffer because of their disapproval and absurd theories.

Any student of history knows what a dread disease smallpox was for centuries. Any reader knows that it is a minor disease since the utility of vaccination was discovered. Here in California we have only one case of smallpox in five thousand cases of disease, and only one death in one hundred eases of smallpox. In a word, thanks to the thorough vaccination of the children and adults of California, the disease has practically been stamped out here, and yet a few fanatics insist that such desirable and wonderful results shall be destroyed, because once or twice impure vaccine was used.

It is time that the people of the state aroused themselves and let their views on this subject be known to their representatives in the legislature, or it is possible that again, as has occurred severnl times before, the legislature will pass a law repealing the one on the statute books, and an epidemic of smallpox will result. Only the veto of the Governor saved this state the last time the experiment was tried, and as neither of the candidates for the governorship have announced their views on the subject, it is safest to kill the propaganda when it first appears in the introduction of repeal bills in either house. This is not a trifling matter. It is a very serious one. and one that should be watched carefully and fought energetically.

– Sacramento Union, September 24 1910

VACCINATION TO BE PARENTS’ OPTION
Senate Bill Passed in Assembly Which Removes Obligations Placed on School Children

Vaccination furnished the topic of the nearest approach to a fight in the Assembly Wednesday in the course of the passage of the few bills whose authors had energy enough to call them up for consideration when they were reached on the file. But even this near approach to a clash between the members of the lower House failed to furnish more that a slight diversion from the routine of the day. with but eight dissenting voices, Senator Hurd’s bill (Senate bill No. 655) was passed by the Assembly and sent to the Governor for his approval of its provisions removing the requirement of vaccination as a condition of admission to the public schools of the State. The bill makes vaccination of children optional with parents.

… Assemblymen Schmitt and Chandler were the only open opponents of the bill in the discussion prior to its passage. Chandler declared that “there are a few old women down in my district who are against vaccination, but I am in favor of it and will vote against this bill.” Schmitt declared that he would vote against the bill in question because of his fear that its passage would lead to the ultimate repeal of all legislation pertaining to vaccination.

But Joel lost his motion to continue consideration the bill, and it came the final vote of 58 to 8…

– Press Democrat, February 24 1911

VACCINATION MEETING IS RIOT
Aged Stepfather of Health Officer Benton Hissed for Defense of Physician
Police Chief Restores Order When Session of ‘Antis’ Grows Too Stormy

[California Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League meeting in Berkeley
story ends by noting five out of nine smallpox cases in Berkeley were fatal]

– Oakland Tribune, January 31, 1913

CALIFORNIA ANTI-COMPULSORY VACCINATION LEAGUE STATE HEADQUARTERS
Berkeley, California, Jan. 20, 1913

The citizens of Berkeley have been thrown into a deplorable condition by an over zealous Health Board, after the discovery of eight cases of smallpox. The percentage was very small, about one case to every eight thousand inhabitants. So insistent were these officials for WHOLESALE VACCINATION, they threw the people into a panic, thereby causing a withdrawal of several hundred pupils from certain schools. Thereupon the School Board deemed it wise to close ALL schools. However, that did not prevent them from insisting upon a wholesale vaccination of school children and teachers. Articles that they caused to be printed so excited the parents that even people who had an aversion to vaccination were terrified into having their children vaccinated.

They have boasted that they would destroy our League in Berkeley, the city of its birth. THE IRON HEEL OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION in the part two weeks has ground harder and deeper than in the past nine years of the League’s existence. Our Treasury is depleted. Briefs carrying our case against the University of California to the Appellate Court amounts to $104.90. Three lawyers’ fees, $150. Besides paid advertisements in local papers, literature, stamps, etc. There is no officer connected with our League receiving any salary. The life of our League is at stake. Can you assist us financially? If so do so at once. Interest your friends in our League, your city may be the next to be visited by an epidemic.
Very earnestly yours,
SAMUEL TAYLOR

CASES OF SMALLPOX GROWING RAPIDLY
Twenty-Seven in Sacrarnento Since January – Other Cities Suffer Same.
TWENTY-SEVEN THIS YEAR
Secretary of the Health Board Charges Increase to Anti-Vaccination Idea,

During the year 1911, when the effect of the compulsory vaccination law could still be felt, the number of smallpox cases in Sacramento was limited to three.

In 1912, following the repeal of the compulsory feature of the law and the substitution of one requiring the exclusion of unvaccinated children from the public school only when smallpox existed in the particular school or district to which they belonged, the numbers of cases mounted to twenty-nine.

For the two and a half months of the year 1913 there have already been twenty-seven cases reported in this city. If this ratio is maintained the total for the year will reach 130, or more than forty-three times as much as in 1911.

Smallpox is not exactly epidemic, but there is an alarming increase in the number of cases, and according to the reports of the state board of health the experience of other cities in state is not unlike that of Sacramento.

HIGH DEATH RATE.

The recent outbreak in Berkeley had fatal consequences for five out of ten persons who contracted the disease within one circle of focus, originating from one person, and there were thirteen cases altogether. In Imperial Valley, four out of eighteen persons died, when the disease was introduced in one of the valley towns.

In almost all of the cases the patients had either not been vaccinated or not successfully vaccinated. Of 279 cases of smallpox reported in the last year and a half there were 228 where the patient had not been vaccinated, 22 not successfully, 22 successfully in childhood, from twelve to fifteen years previous, 2 where the victim had previously had smallpox and 5 where there had been successful vaccination.

These figures are presented by Dr. W. F. Snow, secretary of the state board of health, who was asked yesterday to back with data the statement that there is an increased and increasing prevalence of smallpox in California and to account for the phenomena.

“They are no doubt directly traceable,” said Dr. Snow, “to the modification of the compulsory vaccination law and the agitation that has been going on insistently against vaccination. During 1907 and 1909 a very active campaign was conducted against compulsory vaccination and it finally resulted, in 1911, in the repeal of the law and the substitution of the present one.

INCREASE OF EXPOSURES.

“Letting down the bars has of course produced an increasing population of unvaccinated, and the more unvacclnated there are the greater the opportunity for contamination and contagion. This danger is increased by the fact that the population of the state is increasing all the time, which, with the new ramifications of commerce, results in a larger proportion of exposures.

“When a disease has once been well under control it takes time for it to become re-established, and that is what is occurring with smallpox. There seems to be no apparent reason why, now that the gate is open, smallpox cases will not go on increasing in numbers. It is not putting it too strongly to say that if we had compulsory vaccination we wouldn’t have smallpox.” Dr. Snow says also that an alarming incident in connection with the disease is that the confluent type, the most violent and loathsome of all, is becoming more prevalent. In recent years this form of the disease was almost unknown.

– Sacramento Union, March 15 1913

MUST PRODUCE CERTIFICATES
Requirements of Students Attending School Here Next Monday Morning

Health Officer Jackson Temple stated yesterday that in order to prevent disappointment when the schools assemble after summer vacation next Monday, the pupils will be required to show vaccination certificates, or else certificates showing that their parents have conscientious scruples against vaccination, or else they will not be allowed to attend school.

The law requires that the Board of Education furnish the certificates setting forth conscientious scruples against vaccination which will be handed to their children to be taken home for signature, by their parents. In the case of any infectious disease breaking out in a community the children who have been vaccinated will be allowed to attend school and those who have not will have to remain home.

Dr. Temple further stated that Santa Rosa had been freer from cases of smallpox than possibly any other city of its size in the State and at the present time there is no case in the city limits.

– Press Democrat, August 20 1913

MEDICAL FREEDOM AND VACCINATION

Wednesday morning the Press Democrat published the announcement that Health Officer Jackson Temple, M. D., would demand either a vaccination certificate or one setting forth the fact that a child’s parents had conscientious scruples against vaccination when the schools reassemble again next week.

Wednesday morning the following communication from the Santa Rosa Branch of the American League of Medical Freedom was handed in at the Press Democrat office with a request for its publication:

“Compulsory vaccination has been abolished by the California Legislature, and those who do not wish to have their children vaccinated have only to fill out a blank similar to the following, and the child is then not required to submit to vaccination.

“In case of a smallpox epidemic the school board have the power to exclude from school all un-vaccinated children coming from the district only in which the cases are found.

“Sample of Exemption Certificate…

“…I hereby declare that I am conscientiously opposed to the practice of vaccination and will not consent to the vaccination of ___________
Signed Parent or Guardian _____________.

“The following citations are from noted physicians and from records taken from the past experience where vaccination has not proven a preventive. These are only just a few of conclusions cited from a large number of physicians…

“…Sorry, but space will not permit, we could keep you reading all day on just such data that is against vaccination. A similar theory to that of vaccination is medical inspection of school children. Compulsory treatment will be next wanted by a great many of the M. D.’s.

“Just a hint to parents. In Winnetka, Illinois, girls in the new Trier High School were compelled to submit to complete physical examination. They were taken to the gymnasium and stripped of all their clothing. In the presence of other girls they were examined. A request from their parents to excuse them, and a physician’s certificate were ignored. The Inspector and the school authorities held themselves superior to both parents and family physician. The girls were led to the gymnasium and compelled to submit. When a protest was filed on the ground that the Schools were free and no physical examination could be required as a qualification of admission, the newspapers published the story. The board of education met, and decided that the physical examination was not required for admission to the high school, which was public and free.”

– Press Democrat, August 21 1913

VACCINATION MADE SAFE BY SCIENCE The anti-vaccinationists are about to lose their strongest argument. Their most telling objection against vaccination has long been that it was impossible to get absolutely pure vaccine matter; notwithstanding the greatest precautions, like the use of calves kept under specially sanitary conditions, the lymph obtained would not infrequently contain deleterious germs. According to the German Medical Weekly, however, a way has at last been found for sterilizing lymph so thoroughly that its purity can always be relied upon. This has been accomplished by Prof. E. Friedberger and Dr. B. Mlronescu, who have availed themselves of the well-known principle that the ultra-violet rays of light are destructive of bacterial life. The virus is put into small tubes of quartz-glass, which are then exposed to the ultra-violet rays from an electric lamp. In 20 or 30 minutes there is not a live germ left in them.

– Sacramento Union, July 19 1914

VACCINATION ORDER IS BEING RIGIDLY ENFORCED

The desks of the principals were piled high with vaccination certificates at the high school Monday after a campaign among the students, in which a certificate dated not earlier than 1907 was compulsory with the alternative of a note from the parent or guardian to the effect that they were opposed to the treatment. Dr. Jackson Temple, the health officer, was a busy man and in spite of the bruised arm which he sustained in Sunday’s accident and wore in a sling moved among the mass of students with a pleasant smile.

– Press Democrat, September 15 1914

Dr. Gillihan Defendant in Battery Charges

Dr. Allen F. Gillihan. an inspector for the State Board of Health, who was formerly stationed in Santa Rosa, is facing battery charges in Chico as the result of his activity in enforcing vaccination among school children during a smallpox epidemic in that vicinity. He denies having forced vaccination where there was objections, however.

– Press Democrat, March 1 1919

PARENTS CONVERTED TO SCIENCE Over 500 children have been vaccinated by Dr. Juell, the school doctor, so far this year. It has been discovered since the vaccinating is done in the school and without charge that the number of parents who are conscientiously opposed to vaccination has dwindled from an alarmingly large number to practically none at all.

– Press Democrat, October 19 1919

THREE AMENDMENTS GIVEN OPPOSITION, ONE FAVORED
Sonoma County Public Health Association Talks of New Laws at Meeting Here Yesterday in the City Hall.

“Don’t close the door of hope for cancer victims, now or in the future. Don’t undo all that has been done for the restriction of tuberculosis. Don’t deprive the choking child of the diphtheria serum, without which his gasping must be futile, without which be must be snatched by death. Don’t, please don’t tie the hands of the physicians. Don’t make futile all of their efforts for the alleviation of human misery. Don’t throttle education in the State of California. And above ail else, don’t make suffering little children the victims of a misplaced sympathy for mice, rabbits, guinea pigs and the like.”

This was the appeal of Celeste J. Sullivan, secretary of the California League for the Conservation of Public Health, to the audience assembled in the council chamber of the city hall Tuesday afternoon; an audience, by ths way, that entirely filled audience section of the room and overflowed into the section reserved for the council members. The meeting where Mr. Sullivan spoke was the annual assemblage of the Sonoma County Public Health Association, and it attracted representatives from various portions of the county…

“…That No. 5 promises the appointment of a special board of examiners for chiropractic physicians and thereby opens the way for the appointment of at least twenty-seven other special boards of examiners for the various other similar cults in the state, is the special argument advanced against it.

“No. 6 is a blow not at vaccination, which in this state is not compulsory, but it aims a death blow as well at inoculation and medication of every kind and would irrevocably tie the hands of the state board of health, making that board absolutely powerless. Further arguments advanced against it by Mr. Sullivan are that if passed it would jeopardize the lives and health of our children by permitting absolutely no disbarment from school or any other public place of persons afflicted with communicable disease, thereby giving no leverage in arresting any epidemic.

“No. 7 aims to make illegal all experiments on live animals. It would absolutely check ail advance in surgical and biological experimentation, stop laboratory work in our universities and colleges, our medical schools and even our high schools, do away with the possiblity of manufacturing not alone preventative serums of all character, but as well strike a death blow to anesthesia and through this to human surgery. Not alone that, but it would put an absolute stop to all experimentation made in the interest of our farm animals, hogs, chickens and cattle.”

“Does California want that?” asks Mr. Sullivan. If we overlook entirely the human element and put the lives of guinea pigs before those of little children, are we willing to go back to the loss of millions of hogs annually? And in reference to the charges of cruelty, the speaker made it plain that the laws of this state are in absolute accord with the requirements of the humane societies, which demand the administration of an anaesthetic in every instance before experimentation. Furthermore, all experimentation laboratories within the state are at all times open to the public.

In connection with this amendment. Mr. Sulivan drew attention to the fact that it will prohibit the killing of tubercular infected cattle, except in the course of a regulation meat supply. ”Do we want this in California?” he further asked of his audience.

No. 8 deals with the curbing of of the drug menace. The last legislature passed the measure and the governor placed his signature to it, showing how our lawmakers feel in the matter. On this measure a “yes” is urged….

– Press Democrat, October 13 1920

VACCINATION BILL VETOED BY SENATE

Despite opposition and the absence of ten members, the Senate late today passed. 23 to 7, Senator Crowley’s bill to repeal the compulsory vaccination act and to place control of small pox in the hands of the state board of health. Nelson and others objected to the section of the bill stating that “the control of small pox shall be under the direction of the state board of health, and no rule or regulation on the subject of vaccination shall be adopted by school or local health authorities.”

– Press Democrat, April 6 1921

Dr. H. F. True Tells of New State Vaccination Law

Dr. Herbert F. True. Director of the Los Angeles School Health Department, in explaining the new state vaccination law which went into effect in California on July 23. makes the following statement for the guidance of parents, teachers and school officers:

“In event that a case of smallpox develops in a school district, the only persons who will be excluded from school will be the patient and other residents in his home. Persons who have been exposed by these other residents who have not been vaccinated will not be excluded as heretofore. This will mean a great saving to the schools, in that the attendance will not be cut down every time a remote exposure occurs in a school.

“If, however, smallpox becomes very prevalent in the district, the Public Health Officer may order the entire closing of the school to all persons, no distinction being made between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

“Teachers will not be under the necessity of filing vaccination cards with the schools, nor will they have to require vaccination or opposed-to-vaccination cards from the pupils.”

The law which Dr. True refers to, and which, as he says, removes the distinction formerly drawn between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, so that the unvaccinated now have the same freedom in attending school that the vaccinated enjoy, was enacted by the California legislature at its last session, and reads as follows:

“The control of smallpox shall be under the direction of the State Board of Health, and no rule or regulation on the subject of vaccination shall be adopted by school or local health authorities,”

– Press Democrat, August 18 1921

SMALLPOX CASE AT PENNGROVE

Norman Johnson, the seven year-old son of Mr. and Mrs. Gus Johnson, is ill at his home at that place with a pronounced case of smallpox. The home has been quarantined by the county health authorities and the school was closed Thursday and will reopen on Monday morning.

The county health authorities announced formally today that the school children who are not vaccinated between now and Monday morning will not be allowed to attend school on that day or until they are vaccinated…It is thought that there will be more cases as many children have been exposed to the disease…

This is the first case of smallpox in this vicinity for some years and it is causing a scare because smallpox is rapidly gaining in the state owing to carelessness in vaccination and it is serious in several parts of California. There is more smallpox now than for many years and it is increasing at an alarming rate while the illnes is more severe than it has been for years and there have been numerous deaths.

– Petaluma Argus, June 12, 1924

VACCINATION BANNED AT BURNSIDE SCHOOL

Parents of the Burnside district have refused to allow their children to be vaccinated in the drive being made by Sonoma county health authorities. Not one student in the school was vaccinated, the parents having declined to have the children undergo the treatment. – Press Democrat

– Petaluma Argus, November 22, 1924

culture wars 1920s

WILL WINE COUNTRY SURVIVE PROHIBITION?

ONWARD, PROHIBITION SOLDIERS

THE ANTI-VAXXERS OF 1920

Subscribe to SantaRosaHistory.com blog via Email

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Subscribe to SantaRosaHistory.com blog via Email