In early September, I presented one of my favorite topics at the Audie Murphy/American Cotton Museum Lunch Break Special. It is Blind Tigers, a simple title that often confuses people. We didn’t have any Blind Tigers around here, they say. But, quite the contrary we had several in the area. One was particularly humorous.
You see it all has to do with prohibition, the mere thought of which caused severe reactions to various strati of society. Some were rabidly in favor of the demise of Demon Rum while others equally supported the Constitutional Right of freedom to chose whether to partake of ardent spirits or not. The battles raged for over a century here in Texas.
There was a nod to the temperance movement in the Republic of Texas Constitution of 1836 stating that local elections could be held to outlaw saloons, but it was never really enforced. Those were fairly wild times. With few amusements, liquor and cards were high on men’s list of favorite things to do. Statehood brought lukewarm attempts to follow the temperance movement developing in the North; but those same folks also advocated emancipation. Not a thing for a Texan to become involved with.
Scholars and historians tell us that the alcoholism rates rose rapidly during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Ben Bickerstaff and Cullen Montgomery Baker, two of the three most wanted outlaws following the Civil War were heavy consumers of alcohol to boost their bravado. The same held for their followers.
When the new Texas Constitution was ratified in 1876 there was a section that acknowledged the right of men (literally) to petition for a local option vote to deny saloons the right to sell liquor. Manufacture and transportation were not an issue until early in the 20th century leading up to the ratification of Federal Prohibition. But in 1876 communities simply wanted to close saloons. However, the article pertaining to local option was slanted in favor of the whiskey industry.
A favorite saying of saloon owners was “get behind the returns.” In many cases for violation of local option law the state had to prove the local government, be it ward, city, precinct or county properly carried out law with due diligence. First, the petition had to be in due form. The requisite numbers of qualified voters were necessary. Since women did not have suffrage, no woman’s name could be on the petition.
The petition and prescribed notice of an upcoming election must be duly publicized and posted. In one case here in Hunt County, Tom Holland was not indicted for selling liquor without a license because the county clerk neglected to put the election notice in every county newspaper.
Election officials had to be duly appointed and commissioned. Proof the election was actually held was necessary. The returns must be made out properly and filed in the prescribed manner. Commissioners’ Court was required to count votes and enter an order declaring results and the passage of the law.
Legal notices of the election returns informing the saloonkeeper and all others involved with the sale of alcohol were necessary. The one exception to local option regulations was practicing physicians who prescribed alcohol for medicinal purposes.
Needless to say, many elections did not follow the prescribed routine. Saloonkeepers jumped at the opportunity for a trial. And while they waited for their turn in court, sales of alcohol continued. This led to the creation of Blind Tigers.