THE WHISKY WAR IN ADRIAN;
OR,
he Wrials anid      ipumhsa of arohiitiion
IN
LENAWEE COUNTY, MICH.
A DISCOURSE DELIVERED AT THE M. E. CHURCH IN ADRIAN
MICHIGAN, JULY 17, 1870,
BY
REV. J. S. SMART.
PUBLISHED AND ON SALE BY
J. M. ARNOLD & CO
DETROIT, MICH.




O THE JEADER.
It may be considered hardly in good taste for the writer to refer to
himself so frequently as he does in the following pages. His only
apology is, that his position, and the part he bore in this contest have
been so often, and so outrageously misrepresented, that he deemed it a
duty to himself, and to his friends, to make a frank statement of his
connection with the matters under discussion. He has done so, and the
public, he trusts, will have the candor not to charge to egotism that
which is only designed for honest self-defence.  The statements are all
true, and ought to be made, and should they really invlve a little
egotism, the generous reader will forgive that under the circumstances.




DISCOURSE.
"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest
him drunken also."-HAB. 2, 15
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth
the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of
the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.
For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake."RoM. 18, 1-5.
FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE ENEMY.
When I came into this city in September, 1868, one of the first
disagreeable sights I saw was a staggering, reeling, drunken man on
the street. My attention was called to him by a gentleman who,
though professing to be a temperance man, has, so far as I know,
opposed every measure to promote temperance and the enforcement
of the law prohibiting the sale of liquors from that day to this. He
informed me that this drunken man was a relative, that he had done
much to reform him, that he had not been intoxicated before for
months, and said that he could hardly abstain from cursing the men
who had tempted him to his ruin. I sympathised with him. I had
seen some of my own dearest friends fill drunkard's graves, and others
were on the way there. I had seen the effect of intemperance in all
forms of domestic misery and vice, and I could not but feel that if a
man ever had cause for cursing, it was to curse the man that put the
bottle to his neighbor's lips and made him drunken.
WARP PECLARED.
Not long after, I felt it my duty to preach upon the subject of
temperance. My theme was "The Hell of the Heart."          I endeavored to show how intemperance drowns patriotism and philanthropy,




4
and burns out all the amiable and lovely instincts of the heart; how
for the dearest and sweetest conjugal affection, it substitutes infidelity, morose bestiality, heartless cruelty, demoniacal tyranny and hate;
how it expels the most tender parental love, and makes an otherwise
kind and generous father a robber, a pest, and a terror in his own
home; how it places Satan on the throne of God, and makes the heaven of the heart a burning, seething pit of woe, where shame, gloom,
terror, rage, sorrow, anguish, remorse, despair, form so many flames
of that hell the smoke of whose torment ascendeth up for ever and
ever. I made the most earnest appeal I possibly could to drinkers to
dissuade them from their cups. Previous to the delivery of this sermon I had visited most of the saloons in the city, giving notice of
the theme I intended to discuss, and inviting both saloon-keepers and
drinkers to come and hear for themselves. But the work of drunkardmaking still went on. I scarcely ever went, in the after part of the
day, from my house on Toledo street, down on Main to Maumee
street, without seeing more or less drooling, staggering, lounging,
idiotic drunkenness. Thank God, there is less now than there was
then.
A FALSE FOSITION.
Not many months had passed when a convention was held at Jackson to organize a Temperance Political Party. Being busy in revival
work at home, I did not attend it. My absence from this convention
was made an occasion of putting me in a position of antagonism to
the new party, through an article appearing editorially in the Adrian
Times, but written by a prominent member of my own church. As
I did not desire to oocupy that position before the public, I, in the
most courteous language at my command, corrected the mistake, saying that when I thought it would be of advantage to the public to
know my political status, I would define my own position. In a private conversation I assured the editor at the same time that I allowed
no man to take possession of me or of my political principles; that,
while I resided in Adrian, no man would be authorized to speak for
me upon such subjects. Being of age, I preferred to speak for myself. This being communicated to the writer of the article, gave, as
I afterwards learned, very grave offense.




5
AN ATTACK FR2OM 3EHIND JNTRENCHMENTS.
In the same issue of the Times the Good Templars, who were doing more to keep alive temperance agitation and temperance sentiment than all other agencies outside of the churches, were severely
assailed by an anonymous writer for not admitting colored people to
membership, and two of the local pastors were arraigned and charged
with great inconsistency for belonging to such an association, as they
were known to be abolitionists. Not knowing or suspecting who wrote
the article, I, unfortunately, fell in company with its author, and denounced it in his presence as the work of some meddling scribbler who
was, evidently, very anxious to write, and who was entirely unworthy
of notice, and remarked that the ministers in question would be very
foolish to give it any public attention. I am of the same opinion still,
but might not have expressed myself quite so freely had I known that
I was in the presence of the writer. A stranger who freely criticizes
an anonymous writer is like a man walking barefooted in the Dismal
Swamp. He knows not how soon he may tread upon a serpent who
will curl and bite.
It is of doubtful morality, and of more doubtful courage, to make
personal assaults in anonymous communications. To strike a man
who is exposed and off his guard from behind a cover where you
cannot be seen, is hardly doing as you would be done by, to say the
least. Anonymous writers, therefore, who deal in gross personalities,
ought not to be too sensitive if they should be severely criticized,
even in their own presence. Whatever the design of this attack
might have been, or to whomsoever it might have been aimed, or
whatever the motive that prompted it, the effect of it was to divert
the attention of the public from the question of temperance, and in
some measure to draw off the Good Templars from their legitimate
work to attend a newspaper discussion, which degenerated into a not
very reputable personal squabble between the attacking party and one
of the clergymen in question.
VICTIMS.
In the meantime the work of moral degradation and death was
going on in the city and county. One man had, in a drunken fit, been
strangled to death on our streets, another in a neighboring town had




6
been murdered in a fit of intoxication by his son-in-law, others were
occasionally dying with the delirium tremens, and not a few of our
best families were seeing their most promising sons entering upon a
course of infamy and wretchedness under the influence of saloons,
licensed contrary to the constitution and statute of the State, to
drag them down to the drunkard's doom.
RJECPRUITING    PFFICERS.
We had at this time in this city, forty-six of these drunkard
making establishments, and about one hundred in the County, receiving the bodies and souls of men at an expense of not less than
$300,000 per year..ECOND     ASSAULT UPON THE ENEMY'S WORKS.
Under these circumstances, I thought it my duty to preach upon
the criminality of the liquor-selling business, and the relation of intemperance to crime in general.
In this sermon I endeavored to show that this business was of
itself, and according to the law of the State, one of perpetual crime
inality, and that the City Council, to the extent of the influence of
its license, was accessory to it, and responsible for it. A great excitement followed.
THE ENEMY AGAIN BEHIND JNTRENCHMENTS.
I was severely criticized by an anonymous writer in the Times,
and more light upon various points was called for. Special fault was
found with the attack I had made upon the Council, and its illegal
license system. I made no defense through the press, but merely
published that portion of my sermon which had been made the subject of special criticism. This was reviewed by Dr. Charles Rynd,
the reputed author, and most prominent advocate of our now exploded municipal license system, over his own proper name.
THIRD ASSAULT ON THE ENEMY.
I preached another sermon on the Sunday evening following, on
the relation of the liquor traffic to the crime of murder, demonstrat



7
ing that nine-tenths of all assaults and batteries, manslaughters and
murders are the result of this business, and giving the light called
for upon other points in controversy.
PICENSES fEDUCED.
During the week the licenses were reduced to five dollars, and a
prohibitory clause incorporated into them, so that the text of the
license might not be in direct contradiction to the law of the State.
As these licenses were worthless, it was thought best not to charge
much for them. They could not be used in courts of law to befog
the minds of susceptible jurors, as the old license had been. Their
moral support in this form might be worth a trifle, but not much.
JAOVING PIRECTLY UPON THE ENEMY'S WORKS.
About this time some of our citizens took measures to enforce the
prohibitory law with renewed energy. From January 1st to July
10th, 1869, twenty-four suits had been brought for violation of the
prohibitory law. The cases complained of were all of an aggravated
character. The first two were in behalf of a poor woman whose husband had been reformed by the Good Templars, and had joined the
lodge, but was tempted to drink again in the saloons, and by his
drunkenness not only disgraced the lodge, but brought his family
into great distress. It was at the earnest entreaty of his suffering
wife that the suits were brought. The next two were precisely of the
same character. The next two were brought in behalf of a distressed
family, where a young man had been put in jail for (in a fit of intoxication) beating his mother.  This young man had been a Good
Templar, and great efforts had been made to reform him.  He had a
good education, and might have made a useful member of society.
He wrote me a letter from the jail, which was one of the most touching appeals for sympathy and aid that I ever read. I visited him in
jail, and there he pleaded with me, with tears, and with the most earnest vows of reformation, to help him. Some of his friends bailed
him out, and used him as a witness against those who had ruined
him. But he soon fell into their toils again, and I never shall forget
the look of wild despair which he gave me when the Sheriff was
about to take him to the House of Correction in Detroit, and I told




8
him I could not help him. He leaped from the cars under full motion on their way to Detroit, and got safely away. I have since
heard, though I know not whether it be true, that he is dead. The
next two cases were in behalf of Good Templars, who were reformed
drunkards, and had fallen again under the enticements of these
drunkard-making establishments, and had been sent to jail in consequence. The next two were in behalf of the woman who first complained on account of her husband. She was in great distress, and
sought-as she had a right to do-the protection of the laws. The
next two were for selling to two young boys whose mothers came and,
with tears, entreated that the shield of the law might be thrown over
their children. The next two were in behalf of a woman who had
been reduced to almost a starving condition on account of the drunkenness of her husband, having nothing for herself and her little ones to
eat but potatoes when the complaint was made. He was a fine mechanic, and a kind, generous husband and father when sober. Out of
the twenty-four cases eighteen were successful, and every one of them
was similar to the above, with the single exception of one, where
the saloon keeper dared Mr. Van Sandt to prosecute him, and he accepted the challenge. We invoked the protection of the law in behalf
of tempted virtue, in behalf of children at the earnest request of
weeping mothers, in behalf of wives and children driven to despair,
and almost to starvation, through the drunkenness of their natural
protectors and providers, and tried to arrest the blow of the infuriated wretch who would beat his own mother, and for this we were
branded as fanatics and disturbers of the peace!
THE WHISKY JING.
A whisky ring was organized which had its secret meetings, and
took measures to resist these so-called indiscriminate prosecutions.
A common fund was raised, and oaths and obligations bound these
bad men into a sort of infernal brotherhood. The members of this
ring felt that they were at the heart of a great social and commercial,
and political power, and desired nothing so much as to throw their
hot blood through the whole body of their sympathizers. They
thought, if they could mass their forces, they could by threats, and
acts of violence, financial pressure, social and political influence, and




9
mob law, intimidate the law-abiding citizens, and crush out the authority of the State.
jOTELS AND       SALOONS CLOSED.
Accordingly, on the morning of the 12th of July, 1869, the hotels
making common cause with the saloons, closed. They declared that,
if they could not be allowed to sell intoxicating liquors in peace, they
would ruin the business of the city.
Travelers were thrown upon the streets without hotel accommodations, and the saloon-keepers were lounging around the street corners to see how the trick would work. The business of the city could
not, of course, flow in its ordinary channels without hotel accommodations, and the hotel keepers expected that the great mass of the
business men would at once demand that they should open again, and
would agree to protect the saloons against any further prosecutions.
Such was the state of affairs when, about half-past one o'clock P. M.,
I had occasion to go down to the post office. I found considerable
excitement, and at least a hundred men gathered in front of the post
office, in earnest, if not angry discussion. Travelers were clamoring
for places of entertainment, temperance men were accusing liquor
sellers with perjury to shield their criminal business, and liquor sellers
were cursing the law, and every body that sustained it. I saw in
this crowd what I felt possibly might be an incipient riot. Let the
first blow be struck, or the first shot be fired, and no man could tell
the consequences. I instantly determined to cut the knot and relieve
the case. I consulted rapidly with a number of citizens about the propriety of calling a public meeting, stepped into a store, wrote a hand
bill, calling a meeting of law-and-order citizens to make provision for
the traveling public, took it to the Times Office, ordered five hundred
copies to be printed and distributed forthwith and charged to me.
FIRST PUBLIC JAEETING         OF THE FRIENDS OF LAW
AND   PRDE,.
Accordingly, at five o'clock a meeting assembled at Odd Fellows'
Hall. James Berry, Esq., was called to the chair, and Prof. J. W.
McKeever was elected secretary.  A committee of five ladies, consisting of Mrs. Peters, Mrs. Young, Mrs. Burlingame, Mrs. James
2




10
Berry and Mrs. E. Van Sandt, was appointed to canvass for places to
accommodate travelers.  Messrs. Fairbanks, A. B. Palmer and
E. Van Sandt, were appointed a committee to direct travelers to
places of entertainment. James Berry, Esq., W. S. Wilcox, Esq.,
Josiah Rowley, Esq. and Dr. H. Knapp were appointed a committee
to take a general oversight of affairs, to inquire into the expediency
of establishing a temperance hotel, and to make such other provision
for the traveling public as might be necessary, with power to call
future public meetings, etc., etc. All these committees addressed
themselves immediately to their work, and in two hours the traveling
public was provided for, an ample hotel having been opened, founded
upon the hospitality of the citizens, wvith office and hack book, and
sample room for agents, on Maumee street, in the very centre of the
business of the city, with hacks and omnibuses running regularly to
and from the cars, and a clerk to distribute guests to their homes,
and thus the train which had been laid to blow up the city was beautifully and effectually cut.  This movement took the whisky men by
surprise. They did not expect it, and hardly knew how to meet it.
THE EFFORTS OF THE ENEMY TO PESTFROY THE
BUSINESS OF THE FITY.
But their plan was to injure the business of the city, if possible.
The hotels made their strike in the time of year when very little
business is done at any rate, as the farmers are very busy in their
harvest fields. All the dullness in general business was persistently
attributed to the closing of the saloons. We were told that grass would
grow in the streets if the saloons were not opened. This cry, started
by the saloon keepers, was taken up by their thirsty friends, and finally
adopted by many very respectable people, who, I suppose, really
believed that the liquor traffic, which always tends to pauperism and
crime, was necessary to the good order and prosperity of society.
If the business ot the city was not injured, it was not the fault of the
saloon keepers or their friends.  They did the best they could to injure it. It is said that they circulated stories in every direction
through the adjacent country to the effect that the small pox was
raging fearfully in the city, and that they really stopped teams on
their way to Adrian by these alarming representations. They threat



11
ened to take lives, burn buildings, and destroy property generally,
and alarmed a great many good men. They had determined to compel the public to sanction and protect their infamous traffic. To use
the language of the Common Council, they virtually said:
" Allow us to sell liquors in violation of the law of the State, and
protect us therein) or we will to the best of our ability, destroy the
the business of the city." This attitude is sufficient to indicate the
desperate character of the men.  Every citizen with the spirit of a
man in him, should have met them with prompt and open defiance.
When men of this character are met bravely, they seldom do mischief, but the moment you show symptoms of fear, and cower before
them, you are in danger. It was truly amusing to see how many
quaked and trembled, and by their spirit and conversation really encouraged the desperate measures of these reckless men.
BURNING THE JMIERSON JOUSE.
In the meantime the committee appointed for the purpose had
rented the Imerson House for a temperance hotel, and expected to
open it on Saturday the 17th. But on Saturday morning about three
o'clock, the city was aroused by an alarm of fire. The Imerson
House was burned..ECOND fUBLIC )MEETING OF THE fRIENDS OF                 mAW
AND     RDER.
The committee immediately issued a call for another public meeting at Odd Fellows' Hall, on Saturday afternoon. The meeting
being called to order, a committe on resolutions was appointed, consisting of Messrs. Josiah Rowley, D. D. Sinclair, and W. S. Wilcox
The committee appointed at the previous meeting, July 12th, reported progress.  They had associated with themselves Messrs.
D. D. Sinclair, J. R. McEldowney, H. S. Russell, C. E. Weaver
and J. W. McKeever. They had visited the hotels for the purpose of
prevailing upon the proprietors to open their houses, and secured a
promise from Mr. Wheeler, of the Botsford Hotel, to open on Wednesday, which however he failed to do. Remarks were made by several gentlemen on the state of the city, the propriety of enforcing
the law, etc., when Mr. James Berry called attention to the object of




12
the meeting.   He said the object of the meeting was to take steps to
provide for the accommodation of travelers. Should we allow men
to hold a club over our heads and threaten to injure us? The committee had rented a hotel, the liquor men had fired it.  That, as he
understood it, was a notice to quit. If we rent another we shall receive a similar notice to quit. The committee ask for instructions.
The committee on resolutions here reported the following:
RESOLVED, That one part of our business here to-day is to promote the good
order of society, and the peaceful enforcement of the laws of the land. If the
laws be allowed to be trampled under foot, and the city be surrendered to the
hands of an association conspiring against law, no law-abiding citizen can be
safe. All our rights, our property, and our lives themselves will be at the mercy
of wicked and reckless men, It is the duty, therefore, of every good citizen to
pledge his all, if need be, to sustain the enforcement of law.
RESOLVED, That the committees appointed by the public meeting held on
Monday last, by their prompt, discreet and energetic action in making all the
necessary arrangements to relieve the business of the city from any serious embarrassment in consequence of the sudden closing of the hotels, and to preserve
the peace and good order of the city, are deserving of the most earnest gratitude
not only of temperance men, but of every law-abiding citizen.
RESOLVED, That the hotels, by making common cause with the saloons, and,
without notice to the public, suddenly closing, embarrassing travel, distinctly
and professedly aiming a blow at the general business and prosperity of the city,
have done great injustice to the traveling public and to the business community
at large, and upon them rests the responsibility solely of our present difficulties."
These resolutions having been adopted, a committee was ordered
to raise funds to pay expenses, and the Common Council was requested
to increase the night police force of the city. The committee having
general charge of affairs was instructed to add to its numbers, and
go on with its work, meeting emergencies as they might arise.
STATE OF THE PUBLIC JAIND AFTER THE fIRE.
The law and order men adopted all necessary precautions to defend themselves against personal violence, or other injuries threatened
by the lawless characters who were endeavoring by force to control
the city. A secret police was organized, and every point of danger
was thoroughly guarded. I have no doubt but the leaders of the
conspiracy did their utmost to keep things quiet after the fire. They




13
felt that they had possibly gone a little too far. I think they feared
the law-and-order men, and they had reason to, for they were very
firm and determined. The saloon men and hotel keepers certainly
feared each other, and they had reason to, for they were desperate
characters. And it is useless to deny that the temperance men feared
the liquor men, for they knew that they were encouraged in their
desperate measures by many of the most wealthy and influential men
in the city. This wholesome dread all around did much, I have no
doubt, to preserve the peace, and so perfectly was the peace preserved,
that there was not, I think, a blow struck, or a public brawl of any
kind in the city while the saloons were closed. Some went out of
the city limits and got drunk, and had some fighting among themselves, I believe, just by way of recreation. This was their way
of keeping the Sabbath. But the city itself was probably never so
quiet for the same length of time before. The hotels and saloons
had now been closed a week. Some of our citizens had seen the first
sober week they had enjoyed for years. Many a drunkard's wife had
begun to rejoice once more in a sober husband, and a peaceful home,
and none but God can tell how many prayed, and what agonizing
prayers were offered that the saloons might never open again. But
every body was cursing the hotels. It was every way to them a
losing business. Their rents went on; their taxes had to be paid;
they could not discharge all their help. Doing nothing was not a
money making business. They were not only losing money, but
friends. Degraded to the level of the lowest groggeries in the city,
they stood there in the eye of the public which had pampered and
enriched them, as great ghostly monuments of ingratitude and folly.
I ought to have mentioned that immediately after the burning of the
Imerson House, the elder Sammons broke from the ring and opened
his hotel. He was severely threatened, but his property was well
guarded, and no mischief ensued. It was also understood that the
reason why the Botsford Hotel did not open, was because the landlord
did not dare to meet the threats of his desperate associates. He desired to open, but they would not allow it. They were still determined to hold the lash over the city, till it should come down upon
its knees and surrender to them. They proposed to show that they
were the masters, and that the thirsty citizens were their abject




14
slaves. They had not yet accomplished their purpose. What was
to be done? There were plenty of men craven enough to acknowledge their authority, and to tell them that the law of the State was
odious and impracticable, and could not be enforced, and all that, but
that, though very good aid and comfort as far as it went, was not
enough. They demanded some more formal endorsement and guaranty
of protection. How to secure these was not yet apparent.
THE ENEMY IN COUNCIL AT THE PPERA fJOUSE.
At last it was concluded, on Monday, the 19th, to call a great
public meeting at the Opera Hall, in their interest.  What to do?
To give the hotels and saloons permission to open? Who closed
them? Nobody. They closed voluntarily. Could anything be more
degrading than to submit to the tyranny of their lash, and beg them
to open under the circumstances? Could anything be more infamous
than to assemble at their dictation to trample upon the authority of
the State? A few of the saloons had been prosecuted to save suffeling wives from the brutality of drunken husbands, to protect the
prostrate mother from the murderous blows of an inebriated son, to
throw the shield of law over children tempted to their ruin. And
these guilty men had now conspired to ruin the business of the city,
and had begun to burn the property of honest, law abiding citizens.
It was in sympathy with such characters, and with their accursed
work that this meeting was called, and to the shame of the city be it
said, though the rain poured down in torrents when it was assembling,
it was really a large meeting, numerously attended by men of wealth
and high social position. After due deliberation, this great meeting
passed the following:
" WHEREAS, There is now a great antagonism existing in our city, upon the
subject of keeping hotels and saloons open; AND WHEREAS, this feeling has
culminated in a great crime, that of arson; AND WHEREAS, we are satisfied, that
until the nature of man is changed, while part of community will insist on dictating morals, and the pursuit of business to the other part, that such outrages will not cease; therefore,
RESOLVED, That we believe it for the best interest of our city, that every
man mind his own business, and let his neighbor's alone.
RESOLVED, That should our hotel and saloon keepers resume their occupations, and conduct their business in an orderly manner, that we believe it would
be for the best interest of our city to let them alone."




15
Let us look at this production a moment. Its literary character
speaks for itself, but that is of no consequence. What we are interested in is the sentiment which it contains. We are told that " there
is now a great antagonism in our city upon the subject of keeping
hotels and saloons open."  What was the nature of this "antagonism?" Did any body oppose the keeping open of the hotels? Certainly, the law-and-order men did not.  They had been to the hotel
keepers, and expostulated with them for closing. At great inconvenience they were making hotels of their own homes to provide for
the traveling public, which it was the duty of the regular hotels to
entertain. And as to the saloons, had they not a perfect right to
close in obedience to the law of the State, if'they wished to? Who
had the right to antagonize their will in this respect?  Had they not
done right in closing, and whose business was it? Who had a right
to find fault with men in their first efforts to obey the laws of the
State? Certainly, law abiding citizens had no right to find fault,
and they did not.  Where was the " antagonism? "  The hotel men
had attempted to bully the city, and had not thus far succeeded very
well. They and their friends were not well satisfied with their success. They had declared open war upon the prosperity of the city.
That naturally engendered a feeling of opposition, but who was to
blame for it? Nobody but themselves. We are told again that
" this feeling has already culminated in a great crime; that of arson."
Who was to blame for that? The law-and-order men were honestly,
industriously and peaceably providing for the traveling public. They
were working hard and making no little sacrifice to promote the prosperity of the city. But those who had declared war upon its prosperity, the enemies of the public, had burned the hotel that the law
abiding citizens were about to open.  But in all this great meeting,
there was not one word of censure for these vile incendiaries, or for
their crime. But we are warned that upon certain conditions, " such
outrages will not cease." What are the conditions upon which the
execution of this threat depends?  " While part of community will
insist on dictating morals, and the pursuit of business to the other
part." This certainly is a very remarkable sentence. Can these
gentlemen tell us in what part of the world this is not done? What
would that government be which did not dictate morals? Is it wrong




16
for the virtuous public to legislate against murder, manslaughter,
adultery, bigamy, theft, burglary, fraud, perjury? Is it wrong for
good citizens to enforce the laws against these offences? And will
men who have property and lives, and domestic virtue and happiness
to be protected, threaten arson if such laws are enforced? But why
not?   This is " dictating morals and the pursuit of business."
Suppose a number of persons in our community should open an establishment for counterfeiting, and another for selling foreign goods that
had not paid the duty, and the law should be enforced against them,
and they should in retaliation burn your house, or burn down a legal
banking house, or a store where business was conducted according to
law, what would you think of the men that would threaten a continuance of such outrages, " while part of community will insist on
dictating morals, and the pursuit of business to the other part?"
But counterfeiting and smuggling are not as bad as drunkard making.
The cases are entirely analagous. Because the law was enforced
against some very aggravated cases of drunkard making, the hotels
connected with this illegal business closed, and when other citizens
attempted to open a hotel, to be conducted according to law, it was
burned. Then a great meeting of prominent citizens assemble, and
in a threatening manner intimates that if we interfere with the illegal
business of these drunkard makers and incendiaries, we may expect
more of the same thing. These men, who live upon the miseries, and
minister to the worst vices of society, who would debauch your innocent child, or thrust your gray-haired father drunken into perdition,
who trample upon all law both human and divine, who would take
your life, or burn your house over your head, are virtually endorsed
and encouraged to sustain their business by arson, and kindred
offences, and that, too, by a large number of the business men of the
city. What do these men mean? Do they not themselves need the
protection of the laws? When they once put the torch into the hand
of the incendiary, and say to him, " Go, burn!" are they quite sure
that he will use the fire discreetly? Is it not possible that it may
find way to their property? These are dangerous characters to cultivate. When man begin to trample upon good and wholesome laws,
and defy the law making power, they know not when to stop. Is it
not astonishing that men of wealth and high social position, should




17
not only condemn the enforcement of the laws, but should tacitly
sanction and encourage crimes like arson, to break down the authority
of the State? Certainly, men who will deliberately take such measures, do not themselves deserve the protection of the laws, and if
every one of these men had found their houses in flames before the
next morning, it would have been but the logical result of their own
teaching.
Before the chief speaker upon this occasion had finished his speech,
he began himself to dictate morals. ", He thought the right way of
dealing with this question was to punish the drunkard. That might
lead him to reflect on the error of his ways. It might have a tendency to reform him."  "Dictating morals!" i He said, "He believed
in the enforcement of the liquor law in some cases."  " The pursuit
of business!"  But the cases wherein the liquor law had been enforced
were just such as those in which he himself says that he would enforce
the law.  These gentlemen tell us that they "believe it for the best
interest of the city that every man mind his own business, and let
his neighbor's alone." Why did not they do so? Why did not
they act as they believed? Were they minding their own business
when they assembled together to sanction and encourage liquor selling
and house burning? They were not liquor sellers. What had they
to do with fostering up an illegal business? What business was it
to them who enforced the laws of the State? Their whole meeting
was one grand impertinence, attending to matters that were none of
their business. The truth is, it is every good citizens' business to
obey the laws of the land, and to aid in their enforcement. When
men are doing so, those who interfere to prevent it, are attending to
that which is none of their business. What right, according to their
principle, have they to dictate that the saloon keepers shall " conduct
their business in an orderly manner?" I thought every man was to
attend to his own business, and to let his neighbor's alone. The
truth is, this cannot be. Every man is responsible to society for the
character of his business, as well as for the manner in which it is
conducted. No man has a right to engage in a business which is generally injurious to society, and these gentlemen know it just as well
as we do. How did the law-and-order men meet this remarkable
manifesto? How did they meet the threats of continued house burn3




18
ing? They met them with the firmness and calm dignity which had
characterized all their acts.
LAW AND P RDER JAEN IN FOUNCIL AT THE PPERA
OUSE.
They assembled on the 21st of July at the Opera House, James
Berry, Esq., presiding, and Prof. J. W. McKeever, acting secretary,
and adopted the following:
RESOLVED, That we seek all our objects in a peaceful and legal way, and
most earnestly protest against the incendiarism threatened in the resolutions
passed by the friends of the liquor traffic, on Monday last, in their meeting, that
if the laws are enforced, outrages like arsoh will not cease, and assure those
who make such threats that they cannot thus intimidate the friends of law and
order, or turn them from their purpose."
Thus the two parties squarely faced each other, the one standing
on whisky and arson, the other on temperance and law. Rev. John
Russell, of the Peninsular Herald, was present, and made an able
address.  Among other things, he said, "We are minding our own
business when we are taking care of the interests of society. The
second resolution (passed by the friends of the liquor traffic,) is correct, if properly understood. If the hotel and saloon keepers should
resume their business, and conduct it in an orderly way, they should
be let alone, but selling liquor contrary to law is not orderly. They
should sell legitimate things, and then they would be let alone. If
they keep liquor for sale, they are not orderly, and they should not
be let alone.  But the preamble is the worst part of this report.  Of
course this antagonism should cease, but not by the law-and-order
men submitting to wrong. They have not been unkind, but have
acted impartially. The side which is wrong should cease its wrong
doing, and then all antagonism will cease. The law is for the lawless
and disobedient, and resistance to it is wrong. The rebels only asked
to be let alone, but we told them they must submit to law, even as
we did ourselves. So we say to the liquor sellers. We ask nothing
more of them than we are willing to submit to ourselves. These
men voluntarily violate, law, and then because they are prosecuted
for it, the hotels make common cause with them, and attempt to injure the business of the city. Then they cooly turn to us, who are




19
law-abiding citizens, and say, his contest ought to stop. You men of
law and order should take your hands off. Suppose we should tonight enter the house of the President of this meeting for purposes
of robbery, and he should resist us, how would it sound to him for us
to say,' This antagonism must stop; you are stirring up a great deal
of bad feeling; you ought to submit.' It is the man who is violating law who should cease his antagonism.
The preamble says, this has culminated in arson. This refers to
the burning of the Imerson House. Who did that? Was it the
temperance men that burned their own house? No one believes it.
This document says while one part of the community insists
upon dictating morals, and the pursuit of business to another part,
these outrages will not cease. Did they really mean this? Did they
really mean to declare what may be logically inferred from this preamble, that is, that they are guilty of burning the Imerson House,
and they will continue to burn unless the enforcement of the law be
stopped?  Let such a sentiment be rebuked by the community. You
cannot do less than to pass this resolution." He said he could not
believe that the gentlemen who adopted this report intended all that
this preamble intimated. He thought they must have adopted it
ignorantly or hastily, not realizing what they were doing. I think
he was right, for the liquor sellers themselves were disgusted with it,
and I doubt if any man voted for it who was not ashamed of his act
in thirty minutes afterwards. It satisfied nobody, and I doubt if any
man ever seriously defended it after the meeting adjourned. The
saloon keepers thought this would hardly do to open under. They
desired a more respectable endorsement.  The temperance men were
still masters of the situation. What was to be done next? They
had nothing to do, of course, but to wait and watch until the enemies
of the law should make another move.
THE GREAT PETITION.
If you want to get anything done that is really infamous, the
easiest Way to do it is to draw up a petition skillfully, and long enough
so that no one will desire to take the trouble of reading it through,
putting the specially objectionable points well down in the body of
the document, and then have it circulated by a smooth talking res



20
pectable gentleman, who shall go to his neighbors alone, and without
discussing the merits of the matter involved in it, apply for signatures, and many a man would give his name to a petition to hang his
own mother, and never know the difference till the rope was round
her neck.
It is not strange that a petition should be the last resort in this
bill of abominations. This would succeed when everything else would
fail. But to whom should it be addressed? The only body having
any authority in the premises was a State Constitutional Convention
or the Legislature, and then the voting population of the whole State.
There was no legitimate relief for the dram shops, except in a change
of the Constitution and the Statute of ithe State. But the Common
Council by its former license policy, had in effect, set aside the Constitution and the Laws.  Some of the same men were in the
Council now, and others that were no better. Might they not be
tempted to do the same thing, if sufficient outside pressure were
brought to bear upon them? The moral effect of a petition generally
signed, and published with the name of the signers boldly attached,
would be very great, and a favorable opinion from the Council, which,
in response to such a petition, it would have an excuse for giving,
would a least add weight and dignity to the opposition. Though
every man of any intelligence knew that the Council had no legal
right to interfere, except to secure the enforcement of law, yet for
the sake of securing the moral weight of its sanction, it was determined to appeal to it. Accordingly a petition was drawn up and put
in circulation, containing among other things, the following:
"As an expression of opinion merely, your petitioners would respectfully suggest that your honorable body recommend to the persons
engaged in prosecuting for violation of the Maine Law, to desist further action, and that you secure by municipal legislation, the interest
of the community against evils growing out of the sale of spirituous
liquors, as far as may be practicable. The restriction imposed by a
former city government, with such others as may be deemed important, would, in the opinion of your petitioners, produce the results
desired."
" The restriction imposed by a former city government," was simply the old license system which had been exploded and set aside by




21
every justice of the peace and judge before whom it had come, and
had been repudiated by the Council itself as unconstitutional and
illegal, and therefore null and void. To "recommend to the persons
engaged in prosecuting for violation of the Maine Law, to desist further action," was simply to recommend that the liquor saloons be
allowed to open without molestation, and that they resume their business under the special care and protection of the city authorities.
1 have no idea that one person in ten, who signed this petition, ever
even read this clause in it. It was put far down into the body of the
document, and buried up and smothered in a mass of talk about
"trade," and "business," and "excitement," and "distraction," and
"animosity," and " extreme men on either side," and expressions of
respect for, and laudations of the ability and power of the Common
Council, and deprecations of the evils of liquor selling, and protestations of a deep interest in the welfare of the city, and other literary
flourishes, enough to blind the eyes of, and deceive the very elect.
But whether understood or not by the petitioners, this petition was
signed by a hundred and fifty of our most prominent citizens, among
whom were many members of all our Christian churches.  It was
entirely satisfactory to the whisky ring, and a most stunning blow to
the friends of temperance and law. The liquor sellers looked upon
it rightly as an endorsement of their business, and as a withering rebuke to those who had prosecuted them. Stripped of its verbiage, in
plain English, it was saying to the authority of the State and to the
temperance men, " Stand back gentleman, let this work of death go
on. We stand by the dram shops and the whisky ring." Had this
petition been couched in words like these:
" To his Honor, the Mayor, and Common Council of the City of
Adrian: The undersigned citizens and business men of the city
would repectfully petition you to perjure yourselves, by setting aside
the Constitution and Law of the State which you are sworn to observe, and by giving your sanction to a business which has no legal
right to exist, and which it is your sworn duty to suppress, and that
you officially rebuke all those who are endeavoring, as good citizens,
through the courts by the ordinary processes of law, in jury trials, to
suppress this illegal business, and that you officially invite the saloon
keepers to resume their abominable traffic, under your especial care
and protection."




22
How many respectable men do you suppose would have signed
it? Not one. Any decent man would have felt it an insult to ask
his name to such a paper. The Council would have spurned such a
document. But what is the difference?  There is no difference except in the style; one paper is written to conceal ideas, the other to
express them, but they both amount to the same thing. I have no
idea that all these petitioners intended as much as this. They did
not critically examine the petition, and did not realize its bearing.
But the writer of it, and the saloon keepers, and the whisky ring
understood it. Had it been understood by the signers generally, it
would have required no small amount of courage for a man to attach
his name to such a document, and have it published to the world. It is
a record one would hardly like to preserve for his posterity. Had I
put my name there, and should one of my children's children a hundred years hence find it, I should feel like rising from my grave to
tear it from his hand, lest he should feel his blood to be tainted by it.
Not so with the record of those who stood for humanity, and law,
and right, in this contest. Theirs is a noble record, of which they
may well be proud, and which they may bequeath to their children
as a treasure more precious than gold, and which will enrich and
ennoble their blood in all their generations. Remembering this, let
true men take courage and never be disheartened at temporary reverses. Many, I know, were disheartened at the overwhelming social
power of this last movement. When the petition was published, with
the names attached, it seemed to demoralize the whole community.
I preached a short time afterwards in favor of doing right rather
than to consult present self-interest or policy. It was a sermon I
had prepared for another occasion, dealing mostly in general principles, but I was amazed to see what a fever it stirred throughout the
community.   Men talked about it upon the streets the next day, as
though some great outrage had been committed. One gentlemen
wit stood me to the face, claiming that it was a duty to do wrong
when the success of your business and the support of your family
depended on it, and applied his principle particularly to the signing
of this petition. I do not remember to have heard any one defend
this act on the ground that it was right. This was not the ground
assumed by the petitioners at all. " Trade" and "business" were




23
the great considerations pressed. Their craft was in danger. Once
more to refer to the language of the Common Council, the liquor
men virtually said: " Allow us to sell liquor in violation of the law
of the State, and protect us therein, or we will, to the best of our
ability, destroy the business of the city."
These petitioners simply echoed, " destroy the business of the city! 
It came from them like a groan of agonizing despair. Their cry to
the Council was, "don't let them do it. We submit. We know we
are in their hands. We are terribly'excited,'' distracted,''filled
with apprehension concerning the ultimate and permanent prosperity
of the city.' Let these men sell liquor. License them. Protect
them. Do anything you can to appease them. Advise the temperance men not to prosecute. Try and make the business respectable.
We entreat you to stop this terrible animosity."
Can you imagine a more humiliating spectacle? The great mass
of our business men absolutely subjugated, at the feet of liquor sellers
and incendiaries, looking up to the City Council, crying for mercy!
There is no language at my command which can express the depth of
my commisseration for men in such an attitude. Only one step
lower is possible, and that was reserved for the Committee on Licenses of the present Council, which proposes to pay the fines of these
lawless drunkard makers out of the treasury of the city. Did these
petitioners really feel that they were in the power of these men?
Did they sincerely believe that the general business of the city would
be ruined if the liquor traffic should never again be resumed? Did
they suppose it inecessary, in order to the re-opening of the saloons,
that they should interpose their influence in favor of them? We
had reason to know that they would open in three days, with or
without the sanction of the business men, or of the Council. Did
they not know it? If so, what excuse was there for this humiliating
petition? Why enlarge the power of the whisky ring, by giving it
the influence of a hundred and fifty of our most conspicuous names?
Was it to save the liquor sellers from an occasional prosecution and
fine? Was it to overawe the temperance men, and make it impossible
for them to enforce the law? Was it that suffering wives and starving children, and prostrate mothers might hereafter cry to us in vain
for the protection of the laws? I would rather my hand would




24
wither from my arm forever, than to have traced my name in such a
connection, and for such a purpose. I hardly have patience to argue
this question of profit and loss, when interests so much higher than
mere pecuniary considerations are pressing upon my mind. But as
this is the great argument of the petitioners, I will devote a moment
to it. The Massachusetts State Temperance Alliance has published
a tract containing the following facts, which ought to be in the hands
of every one of these gentlemen:  " For the price of three glasses of
intoxicating liquor a day, you may purchase for your family every
Saturday night, the following: seven lbs. of flour, one lb. breakfast
coffee, two lbs. brown sugar, one quart of beans, one-quarter lb. tea,
one lb. granulated sugar, one lb. butter, one bar of soap, or four lbs.
corned beef, two lbs. ham, two lbs. steak, two lbs. salt pork. Or you
can buy for the year, two tons of coal, four lbs. tea, fifty lbs. granulated sugar, ten galls. molasses, two bush. of meal, one-half bush.
beans, fifteen bars soap, five lbs. starch, twenty lbs. raisins, four lbs.
ginger, twenty lbs. rice, two bbls. flour, twenty lbs. breakfast coffee,
one hundred lbs. brown sugar, thirty lbs. butter, ten bush. potatoes,
five galls. kerosene oil, five lbs. saleratus, two hundred lbs. salt fish,
one lb. nutmegs, two lbs. cassia, five lbs. soda, or one hundred lbs.
corned beef, forty lbs. ham, fifty lbs. salt pork, forty lbs. lard, seventyfour lbs. mutton, fifty lbs. steak, sixty lbs. fresh pork, one hundred
lbs. beef for roasting, fifty lbs. sausages."
Here is an amount of legitimate trade which may be multiplied
by thousands, all of which is diverted from its regular channels, and
absorbed by this illegal and infamous traffic. Other articles of comfort from other branches of trade might, of course, be substituted for
the above. Thus, while the drinker and his family are impoverished,
every legitimate branch of trade is robbed by this vile business, and
the aggregate amount is very great. The amount of money expended
in fifty drinking saloons in this city, would not be less than one hundred thousand dollars per year.  This one hundred thousand dollars
is diverted from legitimate business channels, and sunk in these sinks
of depravity and death. Would it not be better for community if
this money were sunk in the depths of the sea? How is general
business promoted by this waste? The legitimate business of the
city is robbed of more than a hundred thousand dollars a year by the




25
illegal traffic in strong drink. The liquor sellers cannot add to the
wealth of community.   They are not producers. They are the
moths, leeches, blood-suckers of society. They eat out the substance
of private families, and curse and wither every other branch of trade.
How can a business, which every body admits produces more idleness, pauperism and crime than all other causes combined, tend to
promote the prosperity of the city? Let us look at this matter.
Fifty saloons will consume the time of seventy-five able bodied men
to run them, will cultivate one hundred and fifty loungers and gamblers as constant attendants, will keep constantly an average of five
delegates in State Prison, five in the House of Correction, five in the
Lock-up or County Jail, five in the Poor House, and will kill about
one a month, making about twelve a year-in all, two hundred and
fifty-seven, whose time, at a dollar a day for three hundred days in
the year, would be worth $67,100. The cash taken for liquor over
the bar could not be less than $100,000. Then there is the expense
of prosecution and keeping in Jail, Poor House, House of Correction,
State Prison, etc., all of which would make the aggregate expense
crowd $200,000. What good does this vast expenditure do? Is it
not worse than wasted?  Is it not a curse to community?  Does it
not rob all other branches of trade? Is it not astonishing to hear
business men plead for this traffic in the name of " general business,"
and of the "best interests of community," and of the "permanent
prosperity of the city." But it will be said that the plea was not put
upon this ground, but on the ground that business would be ",diverted and turned away to neighboring towns." Col. Eldredge told us,
in the great Opera House meeting, "He did not believe that grass
would grow in the streets of the city if the present state of affairs
continued, but he did believe that Adrian would see a tremendous
falling off in the trade of the city. He did not believe the farmers
would come here to trade if they could get nothing to drink." This
sentiment, it is true, is reiterated by the petitioners. But no matter
where or by whom stated, this is but a shallow pretense which can
have no foundation in truth. In the first place, the business of the
farmers in Adrian does not depend upon their getting something to
drink. In the next place, they would be more likely to get it, even
under a rigorous enforcement of the law, in Adrian, than in any of
4




26
the neighboring towns. Adrian has as many liquor shops as all the
rest of the County put together. Let the law be enforced in Adrian,
and you will enforce it in the "neighboring towns" without trouble.
This we have proved by experiment.
What, then, becomes of this plea in the name of the " permanent
prosperity of the city"?  I confess that I am amazed that sensible
business men should ever have offered it. But nothing ever occurred
in this community so utterly disheartening as to have those hundred
and fifty solid men stand up before our fifty saloons and, while widows
and orphans, and wives and children more wretched than widows and
orphans, and mothers heart-broken and prostrate under the brutal
blows of inebriated sons, were pleading for the protection of the laws,
say to those who have endeavored in a few instances to interpose by
the authority of the State between this illegal traffic and its miserable
victims, " Stand back! let those who will, enter these gates of death;
we guard these portals, and in the name of'general business,' demand
that they be not shut. We pledge ourselves, against the law of the
State, to keep open these avenues of death and hell. To those who
would close them in answer to the pleadings of helpless women and
children, we say,'desist further action.'"  I think I never endured
a more sickening sensation than when I read the one hundred and
fifty names attached to this petition.
THE ACTION OF THE JOUNCIL.
But what did the Council? It did, in some respects, better than
the Opera House meeting or the one hundred and fifty petitioners
had done.
1. It condemned the action of the hotels in closing their doors
against the public.
2. It admitted that it had no power to license or protect the sale
of intoxicating liquors.
3. It allowed the right of private citizens to make complaint of
violations of the prohibitory law, and admitted that it was its duty
to prosecute offenders.
4. It promised to enforce the law against all who might sell intoxicating liquors 1, to minors; 2, to habitual drunkards; 3, to persons
to whom they had been notified not to sell; 4, to paupers.




27
5. It proposed to close up any saloon that might thus violate the
law, upon the first conviction for the same.
6. It offered a thousand dollars for the detection and conviction of
the incendiaries who burned the Imerson House.
7. It exacted from saloon-keepers $50 for the same licenses it had
granted for $5 in the beginning of the year, each license to contain
the following clause, to wit: " This license shall not be construed or
understood as permitting or intending to permit, authorize, or license
the sale of any spirituous, intoxicating, fermented or malt liquors, or
beverages contrary to, or prohibited by the law of the State of
Michigan."
The Council did, it is true, censure the prosecutions which had
occurred, and adopted some other resolutions sufficiently inconsistent
with the above. Indeed, an attempt was evidently made to please
both parties, and as is usual in such cases, nobody was fully satisfied.
/ASKED BATTERIES OF THE ENEMY.
I published an article in the Times, endorsing the action of the
Council so far as it was worthy of endorsement, which was responded
to by a writer over the significant non de plume, " Saloon-keeper."
It is not necessary for me to speak of the style of this writer, only so
far as to say that he seemed very much at home in the character assumed, using the language common to the profession with ease and
fluency. He could hardly have done it better, if he had really been
what he pretended to be. He denounces our present statute as " an
illiberal despotic, sumptuary law," says that "our saloons will go on
doing an orderly and respectable business;" says further, "We pay
our money for the privilege of selling liquor under proper restrictions.
The Council knows it, the citizens know it."  *  *  *  *  *  *
"We do not claim that the Council can amend the State Law, but
we do claim, that in section 9 of an ordinance to amend an ordinance
relative to licenses, that a saloon is defined to be a place wherein
beverages or drinks, other than tea and coffee, are provided, or furnished to casual visitors, customers, or frequenters, and sold to be
drank or used therein. We keep such places"
I will not defile this paper, nor this place with quotations from
the gross personal abuse and misrepresentations of these articles.




28
Any one who has any curiosity to see them, will find them in the
Adrian Times for August 2d and 4th, 1869. At a large public meeting, held at Odd Fellows' Hall, August 6, 1869, from which I was
absent, these articles were pronounced by formal resolution unanimously adopted, as full of the most glaring misrepresentation and
slander. In the publication of these articles, the writer secured a
drunken alderman, -who had not literary ability enough to copy them,
to assume the responsibility of them, and he in turn employed the
services of another drunkard to copy them, in order that they might
not go to the office in the handwriting of their author. This may
certainly be called anonymous writing; first assume a fictitious name
and character, then secure a second peison to be responsible for your
articles,' then secure a third to copy them, so they may not appear in
the printing office in your handwriting, and then make the most gross
personal attacks, without the least provocation, upon a man who writes
over his own name, assailing no one, but merely commending what he
deems right in certain public officers, and then make your boast that
the authorship of your articles cannot be proven! What kind of a
man do you think would be guilty of such a course as this? Would
you expect that such a man would ever desire to have his name
breathed among honorable men? When the name of this writer was
demanded, his articles ceased. Would you believe me if I should
tell you that this man is not and never was a saloon-keeper, that he
professes to be a temperance man, and even a prohibitionist! It is
even so, and should you meet him to-morrow, he will tell you he is as
good a temperance man as I am. This man has been the great
champion and mouth-piece for the saloons during our whole struggle,
and no other ten men have done as much injury to the cause of temperance, or so encouraged and strengthened the dram-shop party as
he. He seldom shows his hand, but strikes in the dark, and this Indian
mode of warfare has been extremely effective against us. The day
following the action of the Council, the saloon-keepers and hotels
resumed their business. The temperanae men discontinued prosecutions for a time, looking to the City Council to redeem its pledges
"to prosecute all known flagrant violations of the law." The City
Marshall did circulate what was called a " black list" in all the
saloons, forbidding saloon-keepers to sell to certain parties. Some




29
two or three were prosecuted and fined for selling to drunkards and
minors, but no saloon was closed by the authorities. One license
was taken away, but another was immediately issued for the same
saloon. The fifty dollar licenses were only partially collected, some
paying only ten dollars, and some getting off with five.
THE JNCENDIARIES.
In the meantime detectives were keeping a sharp lookout for the
incendiaries who had fired the Imerson House. Some of our officers
were untiring in their efforts to bring the criminals to justice, and
finally succeeded in detecting the man who had burned the building,
and through him the two men who had hired him to do it. The man
who fired the building was a worthless colored fellow, and the men
who employed him were saloon-keepers at the time. All three were
tried and found guilty, and sentenced one for one year, another for
two, the other for five years to State Prison, where they now are suffering the penalty of their crimes. But were they the only guilty
parties to this transaction?  By no means. Both of the principal
hotel-keepers were implicated in the testimony. One of them suggested the burning, the other came into court to swear one of the incendiaries clear, and was compelled the next day to make an affidavit
that he had the day before sworn not according to the facts. It was
also in evidence that a large number of the saloon-keepers contributed
towards the paying for firing the building, but proposed not to know
what they were paying for at the time. It did not appear in evidence
that they did know what they were paying for, but who doubts? The
truth is, the saloon-keepers in general were implicated in this transaction. Threats had been freely made before, and this was but carrying
out their policy. Were the men who made the threats, and did nothing more, guiltless? Did they not encourage the incendiaries? What
did they do but give form and active reality to these threats? Were
the professed temperance men and church members, who denounced
the law upon the streets as impracticable and odious, guiltless? Certainly they were not. They gave their moral support to the business
of liquor-selling, and to the crime committed in its interest. Had
professed temperance men and church members all stood firmly by
the law, the liquor-sellers would have been overawed, and no violent




30
opposition would have been made to its enforcement. No class of
citizens so encouraged these vile incendiaries as some church members
who championed their cause.
It came out in evidence on the trial that attempts were made to mutilate Mr. Van Sandt, the principal prosecutor, by throwing vitriol into
his eyes, and from other facts in our possession, we have reason to
believe that arrangements were made for his assassination on the night
of the fire. It is certain that men were lying in wait for him between
his residence and the Imerson House, but strangely enough, the alarm
of fire did not awaken him, and therefore the plot at that point failed.
I am told that there are facts yet to be revealed in connection with
this matter which will implicate parties whom the public little suspect, and which will show the plot of the whisky ring to have been
deeper and darker than was ever dreamed of by the uninitiated.
My good friend, beware where you stand when the whole truth comes
out.
Nothing ever did more for the good order of society and the en.
forcement of the law than the conviction of the incendiaries. The
Court House was crowded to its utmost capacity with liquor sellers,
sympathizers and temperance men, all anxious to hear the final charge
and sentence of the judge. He delivered his charge in a very dignified and impressive manner, showing the utter futility of all combinations and conspiracies against the law of the land, and denouncing
the hotel strike as an act of war against good men and a holy cause,
as a contest of barbarism, lawlessness and vice against civilization,
public order and virtue, which was entirely inexcusable. When the
prisoners were sentenced every true man breathed more freely, and
liquor sellers and their friends saw, as never before, the majesty of
the law.
FAILURE     OF THE     CITY   FOUNCIL TO      ENFORCE ITS
OWN PRDINANCES.
Still the temperance men waited for the Common Council, according to its pledge, to enforce the law against the saloons. But every
day it became more and more apparent that it had no serious intention of such an enforcement of the law as would materially embarrass
the sale of liquors. The work of moral degradation and death was




31
still going on with unabated fury. New victims were continually
brought to our notice, and the professed temperance men who had all
along opposed us, seemed to rejoice in the reviving power of the
saloons. But the real temperance men could not remain long inactive.
FINAL JHARGE AND YICTORY.
On the 20th of January a meeting was called at Odd Fellows'
Hall, which resulted in the organization of the Lenawee County Prohibition League, under whose auspices, up to June 1st, 1870, fortyeight cases had been prosecuted, twenty-nine convictions had been
secured for the first offense, nine for the second, six had paid costs
and promised to go out of the business; in one case we were beaten,
in'one case the jury disagreed, but the defendant paid costs rather
than try it again, two saloon-keepers prosecuted for the offense, " dug
out," and thirty-seven saloons and dram shops had been closed in the
county. The City of Adrian and Lenawee County owe a debt of
gratitude which they can never repay, to C. E. Weaver, Esq., the
late City Attorney, and to Justice C. B. Johnson, for the fearless,
faithful and impartial manner in which they have performed their
duty as Attorney and Justice of the Peace, under the severest pressure of threats of expulsion from office, and ostracism from their
party, and intimidations of every possible character. Most of these
cases have been tried before Justice Johnson, and I think it is the
verdict of the whole community, that no magistrate ever administered
the laws with an integrity more unwavering, or with a more scrupulous regard to the sanctity of the law, and to the rights of all parties. Mr. Weaver has exhibited marked ability as a lawyer, which
those who have honest business with his profession will not be likely
to forget. The prosecutions just now seem to be pushed with a little
less vigor than usual. Why is this? There are two reasons. First,
the want of funds to pay expenses. This embarrassment will always
be recurring wherever the enforcement of the law is left to private
individuals and to voluntary contributions. This should be remedied
by an amendment of the law. But until this can be done, let us
show our interest in public virtue by the liberality of our contribu.
tions for the enforcement of this salutary statute. Secondly, the day




32
of political nominations is drawing nigh, and politicians are afraid
of the influence of the whisky ring.  The only question now at issue
between the old political parties is, which shall secure the patronage
and support of the whisky ring, and the corrupt masses of society!
And both parties are vieing with each other in their efforts to secure
this support. In order to this they are bowing down to whisky just
as the old Whig and Democratic parties did to slavery. There is
nothing that our great political parties will not sacrifice for votes.
Therefore, when nominations and elections are pending, whisky is
king, and temperance and virtue and law are below par. This state
of things, of course, embarrasses to a greater or less extent the enforcement of the law.
LESSONS.
Now what are we to learn from this history? Has it any great
lessons for us?  We are to learn, 1st. That in the temperance struggle now before us, we are engaged in a contest with a powerful enemy
thoroughly entrenched in the private, and domestic, and social habits
of a large portion of the people, and having to an alarming extent
control of both the old political parties, and though we have no
doubt but the great body of the Christian churches is in heart with
us, and when not controlled by fear or party prejudice, will act with
us, and those who oppose us are generally as much out of harmony
with the spiritual work of Christ as with the temperance movement; yet
we are compelled to admit that our great enemy is not without
influence and powerful agents, even in the most radical temperance
churches. 2d. That legal prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors
can be enforced in Michigan, in at least 47 times out of 48, which is as
much as can be said of any other law upon the statute book. 3d.
That incendiarism and mob law, when inaugurated in support of the
liquor traffic, and to overthrow the authority of the State, though
supported by men of wealth and position, can be suppressed by regular legal processes. 4th. That the prohibitory law enforced, even
though it may not entirely suppress the traffic, will control, and regulate it far better than any license system can. It puts the business
under the ban of the law, and condemns it by authority of the State,
reduces the number of dram shops, and puts more restraint upon those




33
that sell than any license system ever has done, or can do. 5th.
That our law should be so amended as to give us a search and seizure
clause, and provide for the appointment of officers specially charged
with its enforcement. No law of the kind should be left to be enforced by mere volunteer efforts and voluntary contributions for expenses. As it is a measure for the highest public good, it should be
sustained by the most efficient form of public support. 6th. That
though there are good temperance men in both of the old political
parties, yet since neither of these parties, as parties, are pledged to
temperance or prohibition, they cannot be depended upon as politicians to enforce and sustain the law when nominations and elections
are pending. There may be some honorable exceptions, but they are
so rare that they are of but little practical value, and the only remedy for the failure on the part of our public officers to sustain the
law, is in the support of temperance men in a temperance party, where
they can have no motive or temptation to diminish their efforts in
behalf of temperance for the sake of a nomination or an election.
In a prohibition party, the firmer a man stands for temperance, and
the more earnest in the enforcement of the law, the more popular
will he be, and the more likely to be elected. Let us, then, act with
the only party of principle, the only party in which a Christian man's
conscience can remain inviolate, the only party that offers a reward
for temperance and virtue, or even holds them at par. It may be said
that such a party can never succeed. It can, and it will. We have a
majority of temperance votes in this State to-day. They only need
to be brought out and organized to carry the State at any time. This
will take time, but it will be done. We had by count vote nearly
twenty thousand majority twenty years ago. The question has never
been fairly put in issue from that day to this. It will be, and we
shall win. But, win or lose, I stand with the right. The old parties
are wrong, the new party is right. I, therefore, repudiate the old
and stand by the new.