Little Rhody's Big Thirst: Alcohol Prohibition in Rhode Island (1919-1934)

7/22/2019 Little Rhody's Big Thirst: Alcohol Prohibition in Rhode Island (1919-1934)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/little-rhodys-big-thirst-alcohol-prohibition-in-rhode-island-1919-1934 1/41

Little Rhody’s Big Thirst: Rhode Island and Alcohol Prohibition,

1919-1934

Eric Casey

April 17th, 2014

Professor Mather

HIS 495

Final Draft



1

Introduction

On January 17th, 1920, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution went

into effect. The production and sale of alcoholic beverages were now illegal under federal law.

The Amendment was the result of a century long effort by temperance reformers to combat the

societal problems caused by alcohol abuse. Approved overwhelmingly by the U.S. Congress, it

was one of the most rapidly approved constitutional amendments in the history of the United

States, with 22 state legislatures approving the amendment in just over a year. The Assistant

Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service declared that the country would be entirely dry

within six years.1

The mechanism for enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment was known as the Volstead

Act. Enacted into law in 1919, the legislation was largely drafted by Wayne Wheeler, leader of

the American Saloon League. The manufacturing of any beverage that contained more than .05%

alcohol was now illegal, and the legislation relied on a combination of federal and state

authorities to enforce the law. In some states, such support from local officials would be hard to

come by. This would be especially true in the state of Rhode Island.

Rhode Island’s opposition to prohibition came from both public officials and private

citizens. The State Senate of Rhode Island was one of two legislative bodies in the country to

reject ratifying the Eighteenth Amendment. In front of the United States Supreme Court, Rhode

Island’s Attorney General argued that federal prohibition was being foisted on the citizens of

Rhode Island in direct violation of the state’s sovereignty.2 As the years progressed and flaws in

national prohibition became more evident, Rhode Islanders would continue their opposition,

1Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979.

2Ibid.



2

playing a large role in national organizations that sought to re-legalize alcohol production. By

the 1930’s, support for prohibition in Rhode Island would be weak enough to allow for the State

Legislature to pass a resolution calling for the end of federal prohibition.

Historiography

In order to fully understand Rhode Island’s reaction to federal prohibition, the state’s

earlier experiments with prohibiting the sale of alcohol must be also examined. Rhode Island's

first experiment with prohibition in 1886 is documented in The Cyclopedia of Temperance and

Prohibition. The state’s prohibition law was enacted by a statewide vote. The General Assembly

then passed legislation that allowed for enforcement of the new law, but notorious party boss

Charles Brayton was put in charge of the law’s enforcement. Brayton was alleged to have close

ties with the liquor agency, and enforcement of the law was virtually non-existent. Furthermore,

the Providence Journal was hostile to the idea of prohibition, and blamed violations of the new

law on the inefficiency of prohibition itself.3

In 1890, a vote was held regarding the repeal of the Prohibition Amendment. It is alleged

in The Cyclopædia of Temperance and Prohibition that the vote was scheduled in such a way

to guarantee that repeal passed. It was only announced 20 days before the vote was to be held,

and was scheduled at the same time that Pennsylvania was holding a vote on their constituional

amendment regarding prohibition, meaning prominent temperance speakers were unable to

be in Rhode Island at the time of the vote. Repeal passed overwhelmingly, 28,315 to 9,956.4

3 The Cyclopædia of Temperance and Prohibition: A Reference Book of Facts, Statistics, and General Information

on All Phases of the Drink Question, the Temperance Movement and the Prohibition Agitation . Princeton

University: Funk & Wagnalls, 1891.

4Ibid.



3

Rhode Island’s early experiments with prohibition may have helped shape the public perception

regarding the effectiveness of prohibition legislation.

Early works regarding prohibition were often composed by those who were involved

in the prohibition movement itself. One such early analysis, written by religious scholar and

proponent of temperance Ernest B. Gordon, blames the failure of prohibition on elitist elements

of society. Gordon believes that the enforcement of prohibition was undermined by corrupted

elements of the government, and that the movement for repeal was led by wealthy lawyers who

represented the liquor industry. He argues that alcohol prohibition was entirely enforceable,

and that regulations needed simple reform in order to be more effective. Gordon’s work is

highly critical of Franklin Roosevelt, who he accused of having connections with the criminal

underworld, and puts the blame on Roosevelt for prohibition’s eventual demise.5

Another work from the era that criticized the repeal of prohibition was Fletcher Dobyns’

The Amazing Story of Repeal. Dobyns portrays the repeal of prohibition as a result of a well-

organized propaganda campaign from the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment

(AAPA). Dobyns also claims that the Volstead Act had its flaws but was fixable, and that

prohibition itself was not proven to be a failure. Dobyns examines the financial records of the

AAPA, attempting to show that the organization was bankrolled by wealthy members of society

who often were involved in the liquor industry themselves. Dobyns describes all work published

by the AAPA as propaganda, claiming they used the same strategies that were used to draw the

American public into supporting the First World War. Dobyns sees the return of legal alcohol as

a grave moral threat to society, declaring that the alcohol problem was getting worse than it had

been before.

5Gordon, Ernest. The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment . The Alcohol Information Press, 1943.



4

Later works did not seek to glorify or decry the idea of alcohol prohibition, but rather

attempted to examine prohibition from a sociological viewpoint. One such work is Joseph

Gusfield’s Symbolic Crusade. Gusfield sees prohibition as the high point of a struggle by rural

protestant society to assert the dominance of their values in opposition to the values of the

growing urban, modern elements of society. He claims it “established the victory of Protestant

over Catholic, rural over urban, tradition over modernity, the middle class over both the lower

and the upper strata.”6

As early temperance movements failed to curb alcohol abuse, many believed that more

coercive tactics were necessary. For the old middle class, prohibition was becoming an issue of

power and prestige, with temperance being showcased as an American value.

As opposition to prohibition became more organized, “dry” forces became increasingly

more anti-immigrant, aligning themselves further with the nativist movement.7 The Depression

also had a devastating impact on the momentum of the drys. Unions began vocally calling

for repeal. Coinciding with this, American values were changing. The culture of compulsive

consumption was replacing the culture of compulsive production. As leisure time increased,

work-oriented values declined. The economic devastation of the depression has severely

undermined the prestige of the old middle class, with promises of post-prohibition prosperity

being unfounded.8

In Prohibition and Democracy: The Noble Experiment Reassessed , historian Paul Carter

largely agrees with Gusfield’s analysis. Carter argues that class conflict was not responsible for

6Joseph Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement , (Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois Press, 1963), 7.7Ibid. 124.8Ibid. 150.



5

the implementation or the repeal of prohibition. He shows that the elite were divided over the

issue of prohibition, and that they played a role in both the creation of the eighteenth amendment

as well as its demise. For Carter, the battle over prohibition represents a more “normal” political

controversy, meaning it was the result of conflicting ideals, and not a battle over economics.9

Prohibition: The Era of Excess, by British historian Andrew Sinclair, also claims that

the battle over prohibition was the result of clashing ideologies. Sinclair views prohibition as

the final assertion of rural Protestants against urban culture. He sees the success of national

prohibition legislation as being caused by the collective energy of war-era reformers and the

spirit of the times. For Sinclair, repeal represented a change from rural to urban ideals, “the

metamorphosis of Abraham Lincoln's America into the America of Franklin Roosevelt.”10

Other historians have chosen to examine aspects of prohibition through the lenses of

social science. In Access to Saloons, Wet Voter Turnout, and Statewide Prohibition Referenda,

1907–1919, Michael Lewis analyzes data regarding voter turnout in state referendums regarding

alcohol prohibition before national prohibition was passed. By examining the percent of various

demographic groups in a county, along with whether or not a county produced alcohol or had

access to salons, Lewis attempts to examine the notion that prohibition was the result of rural,

native Protestant forces.

Lewis concludes that large immigrant populations, as well as the existence of saloons

and/or alcohol production in a county, had a positive impact on wet voter turnout. Lewis claims

that this evidence supports the notion of scholars that religious and cultural factors played

9Paul Carter, "Prohibition and Democracy: The Noble Experiment Reassessed," The Wisconsin Magazine of History ,

56, no. 3 (1973)10Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition: The Era of Excess, (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1962), 5.



6

the largest role in the implication of prohibition. Lewis also concludes that saloons were an

important place for mobilization of wet voting forces.11

In Democracy At Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment , Thomas

Schaller attempts to examine the choice states made between using the legislature or a

Constitutional convention as a way to ratify the Twenty-First Amendment, in order to examine

the battle between liberalism and populism during the 1930’s.

Schaller claims the Constitutional conventions used to ratify the Twenty-First

Amendment were largely organized by supporters of repeal as an easier way to end prohibition

then through the legislator. He says that votes to elect delegates to the conventions were

dominated by wet forces, and once the conventions were held, little debate actually occurred

before the votes were held. Schaller concludes that Article V of the Constitution is rather vague

regarding the process by which these conventions were to be held, allowing strategic politics to

play a role in their use.12

David Kyvig’s Repealing National Prohibition is a further examination of the repeal

process. Kyvig attempts to explain how the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment became a

reality by examining the formation of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment

(AAPA). Considering a constitutional amendment had never previously been repealed, chances

that wet forces would be able to end federal prohibition seemed slim.

11Michael Lewis, "Access to Saloons, Wet Voter Turnout, and Statewide Prohibition Referenda, 1907–1919,"Social

Science History , 32, no. 3 (2008): 373-404,12Schaller, Thomas. "Democracy at Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment,"Publius, 28, no. 2

(1998): 81-97, http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/3331051 (accessed September 24, 2013).



7

Kyvig also examines the1920 Supreme Court case of State of Rhode Island v.

Palmer. Rhode Island Attorney General Herbert A. Rice argued that enforcing the Eighteenth

Amendment violated the sovereignty of Rhode Island, since the state had failed to ratify it.

Rice’s argument failed to move the Court, who ruled in favor of the federal government.

Kyvig studies the motivations behind prominent wet leaders such as James Wadsworth

and Pierre S. du Pont, contending that they thought prohibition to be a very serious policy issue.

Wets saw prohibition as a dangerous expansion of government power and a major cause of

distrust in government. Kyvig claims that those who argued for repeal were incredibly organized

and devoted to the cause, describing repeal as both an unlikely and important political process.13

Donald L. Canney’s Rum War: The U.S. Coast Guard and Prohibition is an overview

of the Coast Guard’s role in enforcing prohibition, and an explanation of how prohibition

enforcement changed the Coast Guard. It documents early instances of alcohol smuggling during

prohibition, detailing how Captain William McCoy and others began to unload their vessels

several miles offshore to avoid U.S. jurisdiction, forming what became to be known as “Rum

Row.” It also explains how the Coast Guard was vastly underequipped in the early days of

prohibition. At the beginning of prohibition, the Coast Guard only numbered 4,000 men, and

had to cover thousands of miles of shore line, as well as preform non-prohibition related duties.

Furthermore, the Coast Guard lacked the number of craft necessary to be able to stop smugglers,

and the boats they did have were unable to keep up with the fast and agile private vessels that

smugglers used.

13Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979.



8

By 1925, the situation for the Coast Guard had approved. New international maritime

laws extended jurisdiction from three miles to twelve. With 12,000 men and a fleet of faster,

small vessels, the Coast Guard was more prepared to take on smugglers. Airplanes were now

being used to track rum runners, as was new radio tracking technology. Smugglers fought back

by radioing fake distress signals to the Coast Guard as a means of distracting their patrol vessels,

building secret compartments into their vessels, or by using the cover of night to move mother

ships within the twelve mile limit before retreating again when they were detected.

Canney’s Rum War also details the seizure of the Black Duck in Narragansett Bay during

December of 1929, as well as the repercussions stemming from the three rum runners that were

killed during the incident. Canney notes that incident was used by wet leaders while testifying in

front of Congress as an example of the failures of prohibition.

He notes, however, that the inability of the Coast Guard to stop maritime smuggling of

alcohol only played a small role in the failure of prohibition. Domestic production of illegal

alcohol greatly outnumbered the amount that was smuggled into the country via waterways.

While Canney admits that it is hard to make any definite claims about the efficiency of the Coast

Guard in enforcing prohibition, he feels that future work will reveal that the 1925 “offensive”

was particularly successful in reducing the supply of illegal alcohol.14

While scholars have examined certain aspects of Rhode Island’s history with prohibition,

most of this research has focused on how these events were relevant to the federal aspects of

prohibition, largely ignoring how these events helped shaped public perception of prohibition

14Canney, Donald. "Rum War: The U.S. Coast Guard and Prohibition." Coast Guard Bicentennial

Series. http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/RumWar.pdf (accessed October 15, 2013).



9

amongst Rhode Islanders themselves. Given the important role that state governments played in

enforcement of prohibition and its eventual repeal, more research is needed to determine why

Rhode Island was generally more skeptical of prohibition than other states in the country.

This thesis will attempt to examine how previous works related to prohibition are

relevant to Rhode Island. By studying primary sources regarding prohibition in Rhode Island,

it will also examine the enforcement of prohibition along Rhode Island’s coastline in order to

determine the role of maritime smuggling in supplying illegal alcohol to the state. Furthermore,

the repeal of prohibition in Rhode Island will be examined. This further illustrates the reasons

why wet forces succeeded in passing the Twenty-first Amendment.

Rhode Island’s Early Prohibition Experiments

The 19th century saw a number of states enact their own prohibition laws, inspired by the

temperance sentiment that was sweeping the nation. In 1852, a Rhode Island prohibition law was

passed, but it was declared unconstitutional by the state courts. A similar state law was enacted

just a few years later in 1855, but it too was short lived and repealed in by the Republican

legislature in 1863. Local authorities, often influenced by their close ties to the liquor industry,

had largely failed to enforce the law.15

It became clear to temperance activists that an amendment to thepubk state constitution

was the only way to prevent a prohibition law from being easily repealed by the corruptible state

legislature. In 1881 through 1883, temperance reformers petitioned the legislature but were

15 The Cyclopædia of Temperance and Prohibition: A Reference Book of Facts, Statistics, and General Information

on All Phases of the Drink Question, the Temperance Movement and the Prohibition Agitation . Princeton

University: Funk & Wagnalls, 1891. Rhode Island .



10

unable to convince any legislators to take up their cause. The Rhode Island chapter of the WCTU

called for national support, and several prominent reformers, including Mary Livermore, came to

Rhode Island to give public speeches urging adoption of prohibition. In 1884, after receiving a

petition from 11,000 Rhode Island citizens, the Rhode Island House of Representatives and

Senate passed a resolution calling for a referendum on the proposed prohibition amendment on

the 1884 ballot. However, due to a technical defect in the proceedings, the vote was delayed until

1888.16

Passage of the amendment seemed highly unlikely. The law required there to be a 3/5th

majority in order for the referendum to pass. Rhode Island’s large urban, foreign-born and

Republican demographics worked in the favor of those who were against the law. 17 With passage

seemingly unlikely, little organized opposition formed, but temperance groups worked tirelessly

to raise support. The Rhode Island chapter of the WCTU worked together with the Rhode Island

Temperance Union to distribute literature and to hold public speeches. Young men formed

organizations to support the wearing of blue ribbons to raise awareness for the cause. 18

The temperance movement’s efforts had paid off. The amendment was approved by the

voters 15,118 to 9,230.19 This equated to 507 votes more than needed to obtain the 3/5th

majority. The strongest opposition to the amendment was found in Providence County, but even

there it passed with just over 59% of the vote.20 It was now up to the state legislature to draft the

details of the law’s enforcement.

16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 Ibid.



11

When the Rhode Island Senate met in Newport that May, prohibitionists had already

drafted the enforcement legislation. Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the

legislation, but the Senate added a provision that created a constabulary that would enforce the

law. The prohibitionists did not object to this until it was revealed that Charles “Boss” Brayton,

the infamous lobbyist and a well-known friend of the liquor industry, was to be made Chief of

the Constabulary.21

With Brayton in charge, prohibition’s enforcement in Rhode Island was undermined

immediately. Law enforcement in Providence, the wettest area of the state, refused to enforce the

law. While some legislators attempted to make provisions to the law to improve its impact, many

more were uninterested, either due to their own personal beliefs on the law’s potential

effectiveness or the corrupting influence of the liquor trade (or a combination of both).

According to a New York Tribune article, the Liquor-Dealers' Protective Trade Association

raised a great deal of money in support of repeal.22 In a confidential letter to an associate in

Nebraska, Thomas Grimes, a Rhode Island liquor dealer who worked with the Trade

Association, openly described paying Charles Brayton to ensure that Republican politicians

would vote in favor of repeal. Rhode Island’s two most powerful papers at the time, the

Providence Journal and the Providence Telegram, both also clamored for the Amendment’s

repeal.23

In 1889, the State Legislature called for a vote on the repeal of prohibition. The

announcement was made only 20 days before the election, giving the temperance movement

little time to counter the growing political opposition to the law. The turnout for the vote was

21 Ibid. Rhode Island’s Repeal .22 Ibid.23 Ibid.



12

much larger than it had been in 1886, and the results were an overwhelming victory for the anti-

prohibitionists, 28,315 to 9,956. Prohibition in Rhode Island was defeated for the third time.24

The Movement Towards Prohibition

The movement to enact a federal prohibition law was the result of the long-term

campaign that stretched over decades. According to historian David Kyvig, the three main causes

of federal prohibition were the century long temperance campaign in America, the 20th Century

progressive environment, and the temperance spirit of wartime sacrifice.

While the problems caused by alcohol abuse are evident to virtually all societies in which

consumption has become a cultural norm, alcohol’s cultural influence, as well as its importance

to societies which lacked access to potable water, prevented ideologies from forming which

called for its complete eradication. It was not until the 1820’s that the Rev. Lyman Beecher

called for total abstinence from alcohol consumption, proclaiming it was the only true way to

prevent drunken behavior.25

According to historian Joseph Gusfield, the act of drinking is something that is socially

controlled, with the proper and improper uses of alcohol being socially defined. It is claimed that

the abstinence doctrine was the result of “a style of life which ascetic character was prized both

institutionally and culturally.”26

Gusfield sees the American temperance movement as consisting of two phases. The first

phase of temperance was a reaction by the old Federalist aristocracy to their loss of political,

24 Ibid.25 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979. Ch. 1.

26 Joseph Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement , (Urbana, IL:

University of Illinois Press, 1963), 36.



13

social, and religious control. It is noted that the post-revolution period saw a breakdown of

the old order of town life. It was a period of dissent towards religion and an overall decline in

religion’s influence. These new cultural attitudes, combined with a lack of access to high quality

beer and malts from England (and therefore an increase in spirit consumption) led to an increase

in problematic drinking.27

The second phase of temperance was an effort by the urban middle class to distinguish

themselves from immigrant farmers and laborers. Drinking was an important part of the

culture of many newly-arrived immigrants, especially with the Germans and Irish. Since these

immigrant groups were considered to be at the bottom of the social structure, their drinking was

an issue for the native middle class. As new immigrants began to flock to major cities, many

early temperance organizations, such as the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU),

began to blame urban issues solely on alcoholism.28

Federal Prohibition Gains Momentum

At the turn of the 20th century, many temperance reformers were calling for more drastic

tactics than moral persuasion or state-level legislation. While many attempts to ban alcohol at the

state level had failed to be effective in the later 1800’s, the temperance movement remained well

organized and influential. In 1869, the Prohibition Party formed, followed by the WCTU in 1873

and the Anti-Saloon League in in 1893.29

The concept of federal prohibition also spoke to many in the emerging progressive

movement. According to historian David Kyvig, both the ideals of progressivism and prohibition

27 Ibid. Ch. 2.28 Ibid.29 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979. Ch. 1.



14

desired to enact middle class reform that would deal with economic and social issues through the

use of centralized government power. Historian Paul A. Carter claims that the modern notion

that prohibition is somehow the sole result of America’s puritan traditions is misguided, claiming

that prohibition was actually an extension of progressive reforms.30

Progressives were attracted to the notion of prohibition for a variety of reasons. They

argued that it would lead to a more modern, advanced society, where worker production (and

therefore pay) was up, and insurance costs were down. For many, society’s potential benefit

from prohibition outweighed the potential violations of individual's rights. The political

machines which often operated out of major city saloons also bothered many progressive

reformers.31

While many progressives supported prohibition, there were some notable exceptions.

Many Eastern, urban progressives rejected bans on alcohol, largely a result of immigrant’s

cultural ties to beer and spirit consumption. Perhaps the most famous example of this was 1928

presidential candidate Al Smith, a progressive New York democrat who opposed prohibition

from the start.32

Congress first took up the question of a prohibition amendment to the Constitution in

1914, but it failed to gain the two-thirds majority in the House needed to pass. In 1916, more dry

candidates were elected to Congress, giving more hope to temperance reformers.

World War I turned out to be the final boost that the prohibition movement needed. With

grain needed for the war effort, Congress banned the production of spirits in 1917. In November

1918, the sale of all intoxicating beverages with more than 2.75% alcohol content was banned

30 Ibid.31 Ibid.32 Ibid.



15

until demobilization from the war was complete.33

In 1917, the drys finally secured the momentum they needed in Congress to push the

Amendment through, and the process of it becoming law began. On August 1st, the Senate

approved the 18th Amendment by a vote of 65-20. On December 17th, the House followed suit

with a vote of 282 to 128. Since neither party was united enough to adopt a platform either in

favor or against the amendment, the Anti-Saloon league lobbied members of both parties with a

good deal of success, and as a result, the vote did not follow party lines.34

Opponents to the Amendment in the Senate attempted to undermine it by entering a

provision that stated that the proposed amendment must be ratified by the states within seven

years of its passage in Congress, mistakenly thinking that this would derail the process. In fact,

the 18th Amendment would be the most rapidly ratified constitutional amendment in the history

of the United States. On January 16th, 1919, the 18th Amendment went into effect. Alcohol

prohibition was now enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.35

Legislation was now required to render the details of prohibition’s enforcement.

Written by Anti-Saloon League leader Wayne Wheeler, Congress passed the Volstead Act

overwhelmingly in 1919. The act banned all beverages with an alcoholic content of more than .5

percent, redefining what was considered to be an alcoholic beverage at the time and baffling

those who had assumed that beer and wine would escape a complete ban. The legislation also

called for combined enforcement of prohibition between federal and state authorities.36

President Wilson, a supporter of temperance, vetoed the act, stating his unhappiness that

prohibition had originally been fostered on the American people as a provision for war.

33 Ibid.34 Ibid.35 Ibid.36 Ibid.



16

However, Wilson would collapse from a stroke shortly after the veto, leaving him unable to

expend further political capital on the fight, even if he was willing.37

Constitutional Challenges and Rhode Island

Despite the overwhelmingly decisive victory by the drys, Wilson was not alone in

his objection to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act. A number of legal challenges to

prohibition would play out in the U.S. Supreme Court in what are now commonly referred to as

the National Prohibition Cases.38

In 1917, the citizens of Ohio voted against a prohibition amendment to their state

constitution, while also voting in favor of a referendum that would put all actions taken by the

State Assembly on federal actions under citizen’s review. When Ohio’s legislature approved the

18th Amendment, citizens filed a petition calling for a referendum on the subject and ended up

rejecting the Amendment.39

In Rhode Island, the General Assembly failed to ratify the amendment. The resolution

regarding the 18th Amendment was introduced to the Rhode Island Senate on January 22th,

1918. For the next few weeks, the Senate received a number of petitions for and against

ratification. However, on February 13th, a motion to indefinitely postpone discussion of the

amendment prevailed with a 20 to 18 vote.40 The topic of ratification did not come up again

during the 1918 legislative session, making Rhode Island one of the two states, alongside

Connecticut, that failed to ratify the Amendment.41 While the Anti-Saloon League had

37 Ibid.38 Ibid.39 Ibid.40 Journal of the Senate, State of Rhode Island 1917-1919. Rhode Island State Archives. Providence, RI.41 New York Times, "Connecticut Balks at Prohibition," February 5, 1919.



17

established enough political capital in other states to push ratification to a vote, it lacked that

capital in Rhode Island.

Using this failure to ratify as his primary argument, Rhode Island Attorney General

Herbert Rice argued in front of the Supreme Court that the 18th Amendment violated the

sovereignty of the state. According to historian David Kyvig:

The amending power, Rice contended, was provided to allow for the correction

of errors in the fundamental instrument of government. The first ten amendments

were adopted to insure against the encroachment by the federal government upon

state functions and powers. If the amending power were to be construed as to

allow any type of amendment, the boundary between federal and state authority

could be shifted at will, and the people of a state would be at the mercy of others

in matters of political institutions and personal rights.42

The arguments of Attorney General Rice and others failed to move the court, and they

ruled the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Acts to be constitutional. The only way to repeal

federal prohibition now would be through another Constitutional Amendment, something which

had never been done before. Many people now believed that prohibition would be respected

by the common citizen regardless of his or her personal opinion on the matter. Expecting

compliance and cooperation with state law enforcement agencies, in the first few years of

prohibition, the Federal Prohibition Bureau remained small.43 However, organized defiance

to the new alcohol ban formed quickly. Within a few years of passage of the Volstead Act,

15,000 physicians had obtained licenses to prescribe alcohol, as the act allowed for alcohol to be

prescribed to patients. While the infamous rum row began to form off the East Coast, California

grape growers kicked production into overtime, quadrupling the amount of grapes available to

42 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979. Ch. 1.43 Ibid.



18

consumers and packaging them with tongue-in-cheek notices warning consumers that placing the

grapes in darkness with the right combination of other ingredients would create illegal alcohol.

Political opposition to prohibition would begin to form as well.

Italian-American Sentiment

Originating from a country with a large catholic population and were alcohol

consumption was an important part of culture, the Italian-American population in Rhode Island

largely opposed Prohibition from the start. In December of 1918, just weeks before Nebraska’s

passage of the 18th Amendment would cause its adoption, a referendum was held in Federal

Hill’s ninth ward. The referendum was in regards to whether or not the municipal authority

should be authorized to grant liquor licenses. The referendum passed with 76.1 percent of the

vote. Local Italian language newspapers encouraged citizens to vote yes, claiming that outlawing

alcohol consumption was incompatible with a free society. Later, thirteen different Italian-

American organization joined forces with other ethnic organizations to form a group called the

Anti-Prohibition Committee of Rhode Island. The Committee worked closely with the Italian

language press to criticize prohibition at every turn.44

In 1930, Rhode Island held a non-binding referendum on whether the 18th Amendment

should be retained or not. Over 94 percent of Italian American voters chose to show their support

for repeal. Some have speculated that the idea of prohibition, along with the rise of Al Smith,

was responsible for many Rhode Island Italians leaving the Republican Party in 1928. 45

44 Luconi, Stefano. The Italian-American vote in Providence, Rhode Island, 1916-1948. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh

Dickinson University Press, 2004. 54.45 Ibid. 64-5.



19

Association Against the Prohibition Amendment

Organized opposition to prohibition began to form shortly after the law’s

implementation. By the early 1920’s, prospective wet activists had a choice of over 40

organizations to join.46 For college-aged activists, there were The Crusaders, an organization of

young anti-prohibition activists headquartered in Cleveland. For others, there were numerous

organizations, including The Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, The Women's

Organization for National Prohibition Reform, and the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers. The

messaging of these groups appealed to a wide variety of demographics, but all opposed the 18th

Amendment. Perhaps the most famous of all the wet organizations was the Association Against

the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA).47

The AAPA was founded in 1918 by Captain William Stayton, a former Navy officer.

Stayton was born in 1861 in a small farming community in Delaware.48 His impressive

mathematical skills landed him at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, and he served

in several different roles before being assigned to the Navy Judge Advocate General's Office in

Washington, D.C. While in Washington, Stayton attended what is now George Washington Law

School, eventually resigning from the Navy to practice law in New York.49 In 1904, he joined

the Navy League of the United States, an organization arguing for stronger naval defenses. By

1918, Stayton was back in Washington D.C, working as the executive secretary and chief

spokesman for the League.50

46 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979,Ch.347 Ibid.48 Ibid.49 Ibid.50 Ibid.



20

Stayton’s political philosophy were based on the idea of state’s rights, which he claimed

was a result of an influential instructor at the Navy Academy, as well as his experiences in the

Navy dealing with state authorities, who he saw as more informed about the problems their

citizens faced.51

The emerging movement to prohibit the consumption of alcohol was a growing concern

for Stayton, who saw prohibition as one the many ways that the federal government was

attempting to control public morals. For Stayton, enshrining national prohibition in the U.S.

Constitution was a great diversion from the document’s original intentions, and he predicted

that the 18th Amendment would be a cause of great tension and discontent with the Federal

government.52

While Stayton was opposed to other progressive movements of the era, including new

child labor laws, prohibition quickly became his main focus. At regular lunch meetings in

Washington D.C., Stayton urged his friends to speak out against prohibition, but they were

hesitant, claiming that it was improper to speak out against government programs during a

time of war.53 Stayton reluctantly accepted this notion, but on November 12th, 1918, just one

day after the armistice in Europe, Stayton proposed the idea again. This time, his colleagues

supported the notion, and the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment was formed.54

Early support for the AAPA was mostly from Stayton’s colleagues in the Navy, but word

of the organization quickly spread, and soon applications for membership were coming in from

across the country. However, it quickly became evident that Stayton’s efforts would come much




21

too late to end federal prohibition before it was implemented. By 1919, the necessary number

of states had ratified the 18th Amendment, making prohibition the law of the land. The AAPA

would now have to work to repeal a Constitutional amendment, something that had never been

done in the history of the United States government.

Despite what was seemingly a massive setback, Stayton’s colleagues encouraged him

to press on with his efforts. In 1919, his group released a letter expressing their views. They

claimed that while prohibition's intentions were pure, it was improper for the government

to impose it on the states.55 Arguing that each state’s unique features meant that what may

be proper in one state may not work for another, and claimed that prohibition would cause

dissention and future political conflict.56

The conservative ideology of states’ rights and home rule were integral to the members

of the AAPA throughout its time as an organization. The certificate of incorporation outlined the

group’s view on the Constitution:

The particular business and objects of the Association shall be to educate itsmembers as to fundamental provisions, objects, and purposes of the Constitutionof the United States; to place before its members and before the American citizensinformation as to the intentions and wishes of those who formulated and adoptedthe Federal Constitution; to publicly present arguments bearing upon the necessityfor keeping the powers of the several States separated from those of the FederalGovernment, and the advisability of earnest consideration before further yieldingup by the several States of those powers which pertain to local self-government.57

55 Ibid.56 Ibid.57 Ibid.



22

The AAPA’s rhetoric targeted professional business men who were concerned about the

new powers that were being allotted to the federal government. Much of the rhetoric used by the

AAPA sounds very similar to the criticism directed at the New Deal a decade or so later. Indeed,

many of the AAPA’s most active members would later become some of Franklin Roosevelt’s

harshest critics.58

While Stayton’s Navy background gave him the platform with which to launch his

organization, he quickly sought out even more influential individuals to join the ranks. One

target was the Du Pont family, famous for their creation of the DuPont Chemical Company.

Originally, Stayton was only able to get the Du Ponts’ to become regular members, but as

prohibition continued, the Du Ponts’ involvement would become greater. After hearing reports

from his factory managers that prohibition was failing to address the societal problems caused by

alcohol abuse, the oldest brother, Pierre du Pont, decided to become more involved. By March of

1925, he was managing the Delaware chapter of the AAPA and paying the dues of 50,000

members who could not afford the $1 membership fee themselves.59

Pierre du Pont considered himself to be a true believer of temperance, arguing that

prohibition had gone awry by failing to differentiate between moderate alcohol consumption and

abuse. It was also an issue of constitutionality. Pierre claimed "if the people of thirty-six states

believe they are better off not drinking alcoholic beverages, or if they think they have stopped

their drinking simply by prohibiting it, they are welcome to their belief. They have neither moral

nor constitutional right to insist that all other states shall pretend to the same view."60

58 Ibid, Ch. 10.59 Ibid. Ch. 5.60 Ibid.



23

Now with the backing of the Du Pont’s and other influential individuals, the AAPA

began to have a serious impact on the national discussion regarding prohibition, including having

members testifying in front of Congress.61 Eventually, frustrated with the slow, cautious nature

of Stayton’s reform efforts, Pierre du Pont managed to reform the way the AAPA worked,

implementing a Board of Directors and increasing his influence over the AAPA in the process.

The elderly Stayton no longer had full control over the organization he had founded.62

The new Board of Directors for the AAPA included many influential businessmen,

including Charles Schwab, owner of U.S Steel, and Henry Westinghouse, owner of

Westinghouse electricity. These new additions also meant the AAPA had even more funds to

work with. Between 1928 and 1933, the average budget of the National AAPA was $450,000.63

Although this number represented a substantial amount, it was dwarfed by the amount of funds

raised by dry organizations like the Anti-Saloon league.64 By 1928, organized opposition to

prohibition had grown enough for the AAPA to shift their efforts from state-by-state reforms to

what was considered by many to be impossible; the repeal of a Constitutional Amendment.

The AAPA in Rhode Island was managed by G. Alder Blumer. Blumer was in charge of

Butler Hospital in Rhode Island from 1902 to 1921. He would also later be President of the

Rhode Island Historical Society, and is perhaps known best today for his writing in support of

eugenics.65

61 Ibid.62 Ibid.63 Ibid.64 Ibid.65 Garraty, John A., and Mark C. Carnes, eds. American National Biography . New York: Oxford University Press,

1999.



24

The Rhode Island AAPA chapter was sponsored by 99 individuals, many of them famous

politicians and businessmen. Supporters of Rhode Island’s chapter included former governor

Emery J. San Souci, and also business leaders such as Frank Matteson, director of Gorham

Manufacturing Company, and Harry Parsons Cross, director of the Rhode Island Tool

Company.66 In a speech during the 1933 Constitutional Convention regarding the repeal of the

18th Amendment, Frank Fitzsimmons proclaimed that much credit be given to the Association

for their work to push for repeal in the Ocean State.67

The Coast Guard and Prohibition Enforcement

America’s vast coastlines were a near perfect environment for smuggling alcohol.

Rumrunners could simply sail a few miles out to international waters, and link up with a foreign-

registered vessels packed with alcohol ready for sale.

Following the passage of the Volstead Act, it quickly became apparent that the Coast

Guard lacked the resources to adequately enforce prohibition along the country’s thousands

of miles of coastline. The Coast Guard numbered only 4000 men in 1920, and was assigned

a number of duties besides enforcing prohibition. Even if the Coast Guard could use all of its

resources solely on alcohol smuggling, it would have faced a daunting task. By 1922, hundreds

of so-called ‘mother ships’ waited off coastal cities in the Atlantic, with the Jersey Coast and

Long Island sound being some of the busiest areas. Mother ships often advertised their products

with flashy signs. These ships would typically originate from port in Canada or elsewhere in the

66 The Jeweler's Circular , "Providence," January 17, 1923.engines67 Proceedings of the Constituional Convention of the State of Rhode Island, Held on the Eighth Day of May, A. D.

1933.. Providence: The Oxford Press, 1933.



25

British Empire. The port of Nassau saw liquor imports increase from 50,000 quarts in 1917 to

10,000,000 quarts in 1922.68

As enforcement efforts picked up, so did the ingenuity of the smugglers. Boats powered

with new aircraft engines easily outran Coast Guard cutters. Even when rum runners were

caught, the law’s lack of popularity made bribery and sympathetic jurors a common occurrence.

In some instances, boats that were seized were auctioned off, only to be turned back into

rumrunners again.

In 1924, dry forces successfully lobbied the Federal government to allocate more

resources to prohibition enforcement. Congress raised 14 million dollars, the largest single

increase in the Coast Guard’s history, to assist in enforcement. The service also received 20

World War I era destroyers and hundreds of smaller, faster vessels. The Coast Guard added

thousands of seamen to their ranks, which numbered 10,009 by 1926. The addition of aircraft to

the Coast Guard’s arsenal, as well as the implication of new radio technology made prohibition

enforcement easier. Along with these new advantages, changes in international maritime law in

1924 meant that any boat within an “hour’s steaming time” of the shore could be seized. This

increased law enforcement’s effectiveness and handicapped faster boats.69

Rumrunners fought back by changing their tactics. Mother ships used the cover of night

to creep closer to shore, monitoring radio traffic to determine when it was safe. The mobility

of smaller ships combined with the use of smoke screens helped the smugglers dodge the new

destroyers.

68 Canney, Donald. “Rum War: The U.S Coast Guard and Prohibition.” Coast Guard Bicentennial Series. http://

www.uscg.mil/history/articles/RumWar.pdf (accessed March 17, 2014), 4.69 Ibid. 6.



26

In 1925, the Coast Guard launched an unprecedented offensive against the rum runners.

Every single available Coast Guard vessel was called into action, with efforts focusing on the

area between New York and Block Island. According to Coast Guard Commandant Frederick

Billard, all of the mother ships in the area were dispersed, and the operation was a success.

However, resources did not allow for the Coast Guard’s efforts to be sustained. Billard called for

even more destroyers and 100-foot boats. The emerging strategy was to focus on picketing the

larger supply ships, preventing them from making contact with smaller crafts and forcing them to

return to their port of origin. Action-packed chases of these smaller vessels would play a minor

role in the Coast Guard’s strategy, but the deaths they occasionally brought about would grab the

attention of the public.70

The Black Duck Incident

Perhaps the most infamous interaction between federal authorities and rumrunners came

on December 29th, 1929. The Black Duck , a 45 foot craft fitted with two 300 horsepower airplane

engines, was heading into Narragansett Bay towards Newport with 383 cases of alcohol aboard.

The Black Duck was known to be a rumrunner, but since the law at the time required authorities

to catch its owners in the act of smuggling, the crews weren’t too concerned, even tying up their

vessel next to the Coast Guard while in port.

Visibility was poor the night of December 29th. Coast Guard vessel CG-290 was

anchored east of Jamestown Island, in the narrowest passage on the eastern side of the Bay. At

2:15AM, the boat’s commander, Alexander Cornell, heard the rumblings of an approaching ship.

70 Ibid. 11.



27

He ordered the searchlights on, and they revealed a familiar sight. It was the Black Duck. In the

past he had stopped the vessel, finding it empty of contraband but allegedly warning the boat’s

captain that somebody may fire upon his boat someday.

Cornell claimed he sounded the boat’s horn and ordered the Black Duck to halt. The

ship’s captain, Charlie Travers, later claimed that no such warning was given. Regardless, The

Black Duck slipped past CG-290’s bow at 25 knots. Even with the foggy conditions, the crew

could see crates of liquor loaded into a dory at the back of the boat. The dory was loaded in such

a way that it could be released easily in case of pursuit.

With the Black Duck disappearing into the distance, and CG-290 still at anchor, Cornell

ordered the seaman stationed on the foredeck with a .303 caliber Lewis light machine gun to

open fire.

Cornell later claimed that these shots were intended to be warning shots, and the Black

Duck had turned into the field of fire at the last moment. However, Cornell had previously been

warned not to use a machine gun to fire warning shots by Rear Admiral F.C. Billard, after an

incident where Cornell fired over a suspected rum running vessel and ended up hitting several

homes on the Island of Jamestown. According to writer Judith Babcock’s later investigations

of Coast Guard records, diagrams of the bullet trajectories indicated that they were fired in a

tight grouping directly at the back of the ship’s cabin. This directly conflicted with Cornell and

his crew’s testimony.71

A Providence Journal report on the incident the next day said that Coast

Guard officials stated that the shots had been fired in an attempt to disable the boat.72

71 Babcock, Judith. "“The Night the Coast Guard Opened Fire. A new look at a 70-year-old file raises a troubling question:

Was the rum-running crew of the Black Duck murdered?”." Yankee, October 1999.72 "Three Rum Runners Slain; Cutter Rakes Boat With Machine Gun Fire In Bay." Providence

Journal, December 30, 1929.



28

Following the gunfire, the Black Duck disappeared into the fog. Cornell gave the order to

lift anchor, but before CG-290 could begin its pursuit, the Black Duck reappeared, heading back

towards the boat. The Coast Guard crew tied ropes to the Black Duck and boarded.

The machine gun fired had devastated the Black Duck’s crew. Two of the men onboard

had been killed instantly, while a third lay dying. Captain Travers had been shot through the

hand and was in the need of urgent medical attention. CG-290 towed the ship to Fort Adams and

Travers and the bodies of the three other crewmembers were brought to Newport City Hospital.

Officials identified the dead as Jake Weisman, of Providence, Dudley Brandt, of Boston, and

John Goulart, of Fairhaven.73

The following day, the Providence Journal dedicated the entire front page to prohibition

enforcement coverage, with the Black Duck Incident being its main focus. The Journal

documented the men’s autopsy report in great detail, as well as the conflicting testimonies of

Cornell and Travers. On the inside of the paper, the front page’s story continued, directly next to

a piece about how drunkenness in the United States was at an all-time high.

Protests of the Coast Guard’s actions were immediate and widespread. In Boston, Coast

Guard posters were tore down by protestors.74 Crowds forced the Guard to temporarily close the

recruiting station. In Newport, a pastor by the name of Rev. Roy Magoun delivered an

impassioned sermon, declaring the crew of the Black Duck had been murdered “by methods that

would have made a German submarine commander proud.” He claimed that the men had been

shot like rats, blaming the violence on prohibition.75

73 Ibid.74 Babcock, Judith. "“The Night the Coast Guard Opened Fire. A new look at a 70-year-old file raises a troubling

question: Was the rum-running crew of the Black Duck murdered?”." Yankee, October 1999.75 "Pastor Calls Rum Killings 'Murder'." Providence Journal, December 30, 1929.



29

Cornell received a poorly worded death threat through the mail.76 In New London, an

angry crowd surrounded his family home, throwing rocks at the windows. Days later, two

guardsmen who were falsely accused of being CG-290 crewmembers were beaten by a mob. The

same night of the beating, as curious on-lookers examined the Black Duck as it sat in New

London harbor, a drunken guardsmen threatened them with pistols before falling on his face,

revealing a broken bottle of whiskey. The guard was suspended.77

An official state investigation into the shooting was launched, but on January 14th, a

grand jury in Providence concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Coast

Guard crew with manslaughter. A few months later, the same grand jury refused to press charges

against Captain Travers, ruling that the loss of his thumb and his treatment by the Coast Guard

had been sufficient punishment.78 The Black Duck was taken over by the Coast Guard and given

the designation CG-808. It would serve in Narragansett Bay for the remainder of prohibition,

assisting in the capture of other rum running vessels.79

Izzy Einstein comes to Rhode Island

Federal prohibition enforcement in Rhode Island was not limited to its waters. Federal

agents also patrolled Rhode Island’s streets searching for violators of the Volstead Act. Among

them was the most famous prohibition agent in the country, Izzy Einstein.

76 Babcock, Judith. "“The Night the Coast Guard Opened Fire. A new look at a 70-year-old file raises a troubling

question: Was the rum-running crew of the Black Duck murdered?”." Yankee, October 1999.77 Jim Ignasher, Rhode Island Disasters: Tales of Tragedy by Air, Sea and Rail , (The History Press, 2010).78 Babcock, Judith. "“The Night the Coast Guard Opened Fire. A new look at a 70-year-old file raises a troubling

question: Was the rum-running crew of the Black Duck murdered?”." Yankee, October 1999.79 Jim Ignasher, Rhode Island Disasters: Tales of Tragedy by Air, Sea and Rail , (The History Press, 2010).



30

Einstein, a former post office worker, signed up for the Prohibition Bureau in 1920,

viewing it as a more entertaining form of employment. Less than five and a half feet tall and

weighing over 250 pounds, Einstein certainly didn’t appear to be a law enforcement officer

and this combined with his ability to speak several languages, allowed him to be an incredibly

effective undercover agent. Einstein was a master of disguise, once going as far as dressing up

as an African-American man to make a bust in Harlem. Einstein’s eccentric behavior and his

thousands of arrests quickly made him the focus of much media attention.80

On September 7th, 1922, Izzy and several other agents headed towards Rhode Island

from New York. When Einstein arrived in Providence, it quickly became evident that the city’s

overwhelmingly wet sentiments were going to make his job difficult. Saloon owners laughed

when he notified them that they were to appear in Federal court. One irate owner threw a pitcher

of whiskey at him.81

Two days after his arrival in Rhode Island, Einstein and another federal agent, Peter

Reager, were arrested by Rhode Island State Police. A saloon owner in Central Falls alleged that

he had been assaulted by the officers when they had attempted to arrest him for selling alcohol.

Both men were charged with assault and trespassing and held on $10,000 bonds. When they

were placed under arrest, Reager struggled with the officers, resisting their attempts to handcuff

him. Reager claimed that the officers beat him and that one of them had allegedly jammed the

barrel of his pistol into Reager’s stomach. Attorneys of several men claiming to be vendors of

“neer-beer,” a non-alcoholic brew designed as a substitute for alcoholic beverages, filed a suit

with the U.S. District Attorney, alleging that Einstein and his men had rushed the bartenders

80 Hanson, David. State University of New York Potsdam, "Izzy Einstein and Moe Smith." Accessed April 1, 2014.81 Jim Ignasher, Forgotten Tales of Rhode Island , (The History Press, 2008), 136-8.



31

with revolvers, assaulting them with vile language. The attorneys went on to say that the agent's

actions made them guilty of intentionally violating the constitution and said "from the evidence

presented to us it would appear that publicity had carried these men to a mental stage where they

ignore all provisions of the law"82

Following his arrest, Einstein declared Providence to be the wettest city in the entire

nation, worse than the infamously wet New York City. He claimed that there were over 700

places where whiskey could be purchased, saying "Liquor is sold openly in all parts of the city,

in the most fashionable places as well as in the cheap dives along the waterfront." Einstein

claimed that all the people that he arrested claimed that it was the first time they had ever been

confronted about breaking the law. Eventually, Federal officials would send legal help to free

Einstein and Reager, although no legal action was taken against the state officials who had

arrested them.83

Repeal

David Kyvig attributes the speedy nature of the 18th Amendment’s repeal to three factors;

Democratic Party support, sustained anti-prohibitionist pressure, and fortunate timing. According

to Kyvig, the landslide victory by Democrats in the 1932 federal elections was seen by many as a

mandate for repeal.84 Republicans paid dearly for their continued support of Prohibition

following the Great Depression. Already frustrated with the lack of success that prohibition had

with reducing problematic alcohol use, many Americans were no longer willing to suppress a

82 "Wets Cause Arrest of Izzy and Moe; Rhode Island Saloon Keepers Charge Assault and Using of Obscene

Language." New York Times, September 9, 1929.83 "Izzy Einstein Found Providence Wide Open." New York Times, September 11, 1929.84 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979. Ch. 9.



32

major industry in times of economic decay. Campaigns such as “Beer for Prosperity” highlighted

the potential economic benefits of re-legalizing production of beer.85 Many AAPA members who

had been firm Republicans left the party due to their unrelenting support for the 18th

Amendment.86 Rhode Island’s Republicans stated they would abide by the results of a state

referendum on the 18th Amendment, unwilling to risk alienating their wet constituents.87

Article V of the United States Constitution is vague when it comes to the details of how

states should go about ratifying amendments. This is especially true when it comes to the details

of how states should precede with ratification via a convention. Capitalizing on this opportunity,

wet forces from across the nation sought to gain control over how states would operate these

conventions, seeking to implement rules and regulations that would benefit those pushing for

repeal. The Voluntary Committee of Lawyers embarked on a campaign to convince state’s

governors to form state conventions that would allow for at-large districts rather than basing

them off pre-existent districts used for House elections. According to Thomas Schaller, these

lobbying efforts led to Conventions that acted more like referendums. The decision as to whether

or not a state would favor repeal was made by voters who elected delegates to the conventions

rather than the convention themselves. In many states, almost all voters selected either all dry or

all wet candidates. Schaller notes that in almost every state, conventions regarding the question

of repeal were largely a formality, and contained little debate or discussion by the delegates.88

Support for repeal came for a variety of reasons. As prohibition went on, the control

of the liquor trade by organized crime became more apparent and irreversible. As the power

85 “How Crime is Financed.” Beer for Prosperity Campaign. Hagley Digital Archives.86 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979. Ch. 8.87 Ibid.88 Schaller, Thomas. "Democracy at Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment,"Publius, 28, no. 2

(1998): 81-97, http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/3331051 .



33

of organized crime grew across the country, corruption also grew at all levels of government.

The honest enforcement agents were simply becoming overwhelmed.89 The potential economic

benefits of re-legalizing beer and spirit production were also a strong motivating factor,

particularly after the beginnings of the Great Depression.90 These potential economic benefits led

to many powerful labor unions throwing their support behind repeal.91

In Rhode Island’s Constitutional Convention elections, 82% of the electorate voted in

favor of pro-repeal candidates.92 Total turnout for the special election was 171,118 voters, which

was 64% of the turnout for the 1932 Presidential election.93 Considering the importance of the

1932 election, in addition to the fact that the 1933 election was held in an off-year and only dealt

with electing delegates to the convention, this turnout cannot easily be dismissed as inadequately

representing the will of Rhode Island’s population.

Rhode Island’s Constitutional Convention was held on May 8th, 1933, only one

week after the results of the delegate election were finalized. Only delegates who supported

prohibition’s repeal were elected to the convention. Many of the delegates were established

Democratic politicians, including former Governor William S. Flynn. The Convention was

chaired by Governor T.F. Greene.

Greene started the Convention with some prepared remarks. He claimed that Rhode

Island’s opposition to prohibition had been there all along, and now other states were beginning

to catch up. He criticized the 1922 State Enforcement Act, which the General Assembly had

89 Willoughby, Malcolm Francis. "The End of Prohibition." In Rum War at Sea. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,1964.

90 “How Crime is Financed.” Beer for Prosperity Campaign. Hagley Digital Archives.91 Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979.92 Schaller, Thomas. "Democracy at Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment,"Publius, 28, no. 2

(1998): 81-97, http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/3331051 .

93 Peters , Gerhard. "Election of 1932." The American Presidency Project.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1932 .



34

passed to allow for state officials to enforce prohibition. He said that the Act was at no time in

alignment with the will of the people of Rhode Island. Greene also noted the results of a non-

binding referendum on the 1930 ballot, where Rhode Islanders voted against Prohibition by a

margin of three to one. Taking note of the fact that the 1933 delegate election had the strongest

turnout of any special election in Rhode Island’s history, Greene thanked the citizens of the state

for their response and said that their overwhelming expression of opinion would be represented

well.94

Former Governor Flynn was then given the floor. Highlighting Rhode Island’s colonial

past, Flynn noted that it was appropriate that the Convention was being held in May, as it was the

same month that Rhode Island declared its independence from Great Britain.

Flynn went on with his comparisons to the American Revolution, saying:

It demanded the highest courage fostered and sustained by our people’s passionfor true liberty to lead all the other colonies in taking the momentous step ofcomplete separation from Great Britain, thus defying the greatest world power ofthat day. In the same spirit our people refused to ratify the Federal Constitutionuntil assured of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.95

Flynn went on to list the ways that Rhode Island had opposed federal prohibition,

mentioning how state officials had challenged the validity of the law in front of the Supreme

Court. He referred to the delegate election results as “the most decisive mandate ever given to

their representatives by the people of Rhode Island,” and commented that he hoped that Rhode

Island’s speedy action on the 22nd Amendment would inspire other states to follow suit.96

94 Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Rhode Island, Held on the Eighth Day of May, A. D.

1933.. Providence: The Oxford Press, 1933.95 Ibid.96 Ibid.



35

Following Flynn’s speech, former Democratic Senator Peter G. Gerry took the floor

briefly. Noting that he voted against the 18th Amendment during his time in Washington, Gerry

expressed his pride that Rhode Island would be the third state to repeal. 97

Next to the floor was Walter I. Sundlun, a Republican who would later be most famous

for losing to T.F Greene in the 1954 Senate election. Sundlun also attempted to tie Rhode

Island’s rejection of prohibition to colonial Rhode Island’s rejection of British rule. Calling the

Convention a “historic day in Rhode Island history,” he claimed that Rhode Island had raised

objections to prohibition since the day it was adopted. Attempting to explain Rhode Island’s

resistance, Sundlun proclaimed:

Rhode Island has always had a clear understanding of human nature, a comprehensionof our institutions and the purpose of our government, a recognition of the great basic principles that our government, in order to retain its character, must respondto the popular will, and always maintained that our government in order to remain agovernment “of the people, by the people, for the people” must recognize the principlethat it derives from the powers from the governed.98

Sundlun then turned his focus to the alleged failures of alcohol prohibition, claiming that

it only increased drunkenness, violent crime, and discontent with the law. Stating that the eyes of

the nation were on Rhode Island, Sundlun expressed his pleasure in being part of the Convention

that would lead to repeal.99 The results of the vote that had yet to take place were not in doubt.

Following a brief speech by Independent Party chair Luke Callan, Eugene Jailbert, a

catholic Republican lawyer, took the floor. Jailbert claimed that the 18th Amendment was

pushed upon the American public by a vocal minority, and expressed his pride in helping bring it

to an end.100




36

Joseph Veneziale was the last delegate to speak before the vote. Veneziale, an Italian-

American who had recently been appointed to the position of Special Assistant U.S. Attorney,

spoke about the influence of immigrants over Rhode Island’s rejection of Prohibition. Speaking

of Rhode Island’s demographics, Veneziale said “We know that the State of Rhode Island has a

cosmopolitan population. It is heterogeneous, not homogeneous, at all.” He claimed that 5,000

Italians from Federal Hill came out to vote for repeal while only a handful voted for continuing

prohibition.101

Following Veneziale’s remarks, former Governor Flynn moved to have a roll call vote on

the resolution. The motion was seconded, the vote was held, and repeal passed unanimously.

Rhode Island had become the third state to repeal the 18th Amendment. 102

Conclusion

While Rhode Island was not alone in its objection to federal alcohol prohibition, the

attitude of both public officials and the citizens of the state towards it are significant. Due to

Rhode Island’s large immigrant population, and the state’s seemingly timeless concerns over

its sovereignty, Rhode Island failed to get fully swept up in the prohibitionist fervor that swept

the nation during the first decades of the 20 th Century. Rhode Island’s earlier failed experiments

involving prohibition may have played an additional role in prohibition’s lack of support. The

success of the AAPA, the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers, and other wet organizations in

the state suggest that a strong anti-prohibitionist sentiment already existed in the state. The

actions of federal officials during the Black Duck Incident and prohibition agent Izzy Einstein

101 Ibid.102 Ibid.



37

further alienated Rhode Islanders from the concept of a federally enforced liquor ban. Finally,

the takeover of the state government by the Democratic Party in the 1920’s and Rhode Island

Republicans refusal to stand with the official party position on prohibition cemented Rhode

Island’s legacy as a wet state. As only one of two states to reject ratification, and the third state

to repeal the 18th Amendment, Rhode Island was certainly a leader amongst the states when it

came to objection to federal prohibition.

The era of prohibition is important to American history because it represents the broader

ideological struggles that have been important to the political fabric of the nation, whether it be

protestant versus catholic, populist versus progressive, or Democrat versus Republican. While,

with today’s hindsight, prohibition’s failure may seem like it was inevitable, when the 18 th

Amendment first passed, it seemed as if the prohibition of alcohol was to be cemented in the

Constitution forever. If it had not been for the organized, persistent efforts of wet forces, it is

possible that prohibition’s death would have been a much slower and gradual process. Indeed,

with the existence of dry counties throughout the contemporary United States, and the continued

existence of the Prohibitionist Party into modern times, the ideological concept of complete

abstinence from alcohol consumption cannot be solely written off as a movement of the past.

As the federal government and state governments across the nation continually re-examine their

alcohol and drug policies due to economic and social concerns, the lessons learned from the

federal prohibition of alcohol remain relevant today.



38

Primary Sources

"Black Duck Aftermath." Time Magazine, Jan 13, 1930.

(http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789063,00.html).

Bettencourt, Keith. "My Great Uncle was the Skipper of the Black Duck," 41 North, 2,

no.2 (2004).

“How Crime is Financed.” Beer for Prosperity Campaign. Hagley Digital Archives.

The Jeweler's Circular , "Providence," January 17, 1923.

Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Rhode Island : held on the eighthday of May, A.D. 1933. Oxford Press. Providence, RI.

"Rhode Island Defeats Prohibition." New York Times, March 13, 1918.

Resolution recommending to the Congress of the United States the passage of legislation

providing for the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States. Rhode Island General Assembly. HV5253.R4 R3 1931. Rhode Island Historical

Society. Providence, RI.

"Three Rum Runners Slain; Cutter Rakes Boat With Machine Gun Fire In Bay." Providence

Journal , December 30, 1929.

"Pastor Calls Rum Killings 'Murder'." Providence Journal , December 30, 1929.

“Speedboat Goes on Rocks in Fog.” Providence Journal, December 30, 1929.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, General Assembly. An Act To Publish

and Submit to the Electors, The Questions Relative to the Proposed Amendment

of the Constitution of the United States. Representative Littlefield. H 631. Providence, RI.

January Session, 1918.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, General Assembly. Resolution Relative



39

to the Proposed Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and

Ratification of the Same. Senator Colwell. S 4. Providence, RI. January Session,

1919.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, General Assembly. Journal of the

Senate. Secretary F. Fred Parker. Providence, RI. 1917-1919.

Secondary Sources

Babcock, Judith. "“The Night the Coast Guard Opened Fire. A new look at a 70-year-old file

raises a troubling question: Was the rum-running crew of the Black Duck murdered?”."

Yankee, October 1999. http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-

1.amazonaws.com/docs/1431/329398/The_Night_the_Coast_Guard_Opened_Fire.pdf

Canney, Donald. "Rum War: The U.S. Coast Guard and Prohibition." Coast Guard Bicentennial

Series. http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/RumWar.pdf (accessed October 15, 2013).

Carter, Paul. "Prohibition and Democracy: The Noble Experiment Reassessed," The Wisconsin

Magazine of History, 56, no. 3 (1973): 189-201,

http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/4634793 (accessed September 24, 2013).

Dobyns, Fletcher. The Amazing Story of Repeal: An Expose of the Power of Propaganda.

Chicago: Willet, Clark and Company, 1940.

Eagles, Charles. "Congressional Voting in the 1920s: A Test of Urban-Rural Conflict." The

Journal of American History. no. 2 (1989): 528-534.

Gordon, Ernest B.. The wrecking of the eighteenth amendment . Francestown, N.H.: Alcohol

Information Press, 1943.

Gusfield, Joseph R.. Symbolic Crusade; Status Politics and the American Temperance

Movement .. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963.



40

Kyvig, David. Repealing National Prohibition. University of Chicago, 1979.

Lewis, Michael. "Access to Saloons, Wet Voter Turnout, and Statewide Prohibition Referenda,

1907–1919," Social Science History, 32, no. 3 (2008): 373-404, http://0-

www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/40267976 (accessed September 24, 2013).

Luconi, Stefano. The Italian-American vote in Providence, Rhode Island, 1916-1948. Madison,

N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2004. 54.

Peters, Gerhard, and John Woolley. "Election of 1932." The American Presidency Project.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1932

Schaller, Thomas. "Democracy at Rest: Strategic Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment,"

Publius, 28, no. 2 (1998): 81-97, http://0-www.jstor.org.helin.uri.edu/stable/3331051

(accessed September 24, 2013).

Sinclair, Andrew. Era of excess: a social history of the prohibition movement.. New York:

Harper & Row, 1964.

Spooner, Walter, ed. The Cyclopædia of Temperance and Prohibition: A Reference Book of

Facts, Statistics, and General Information on All Phases of the Drink Question, the

Temperance Movement and the Prohibition Agitation. Princeton University: Funk &

Wagnalls, 1891. s.v. "Rhode Island's Repeal."

Willoughby, Malcolm Francis. Rum War at Sea. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1964.

Documents

Little Rhody's Big Thirst: Alcohol Prohibition in Rhode Island (1919-1934)