Collections : [University of Michigan Bentley Historical Library]

The Correspondence series deals with a wide variety of subjects, from efforts to incorporate the A.S.L.A. as a tax-free organization to specific legal points in prohibition laws. Although many letters contain only routine information, some letters from Congressmen explain their reasons for supporting or opposing prohibition legislation. Readers should note that it was the practice of this office to use the obverse of letters received as blank sheets for carbons of the reply. Hence correspondence is not in strict chronological order.

Correspondence prior to ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment concerns Oklahoma's dry law, the 1917 Virginia gubernatorial campaign, and court cases involving prohibition issues. From 1921 to 1923, correspondents discussed the operation of the Volstead Act, problems of prohibition law enforcement, Abraham Lincoln's attitude toward prohibition, and various state prohibition laws. Major issues discussed in 1924 included Congressional appropriations for prohibition enforcement, constitutionality of the Volstead Act, the Cramton Bill designed to correct defects in the Prohibition Law Enforcement Bill (H.R.6645), proposals to legalize 2.75% beer, and other legal aspects of prohibition. These same issues were prominent in 1925, with lengthy debate on the additional question of whether the Anti-Saloon League should be incorporated as a tax-free organization.

Most of the correspondence for 1926 is dated in December, when the Legal Office's attention was occupied by the Tumey v. State of Ohio case, which concerned what agency should receive fines obtained from prohibition law violations. The Legal Office sent letters to state superintendents regarding appropriation of prohibition fines in their states and received answers from almost every state attorney general. During 1927 important legal concerns of the Anti-Saloon League included whether the prohibition amendment should be changed from exclusion of "intoxicating" beverages to the broader category of "alcoholic" beverages; how to collect income tax from illegal bootleggers; prohibition in Puerto Rico; the Tumey v. Ohio case; and possible incorporation of the A.S.L.A. Several Senators and Congressmen wrote letters describing how much discussion there was over use of the word "intoxicating" when the prohibition amendment was debated in Congress.

In 1928 the A.S.L.A. continued to consider incorporation of the League's Educational Foundation for tax purposes. Correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service examined the possibility that contributions to the Educational Foundation could be considered tax deductible because of the A.S.L.A.'s religious affiliations. The League also argued that the Senate should impeach Judge Cooper for his failure to enforce prohibition laws. Prohibition enforcement is the main theme in correspondence for 1929. Important topics include temperance education in public schools, funding needs of the government's prohibition department, failure of the Supreme Court to enforce prohibition laws, whether foreign diplomats should be prosecuted for prohibition violations, and the illegality of making wine and beer at home.

Correspondence from 1930 to 1932 discussed the case of United States v. Sprague concerning constitutionality of the 18th Amendment; a bill to facilitate stricter control over fermented fruit juices; and incorporation of the A.S.L.A. There is also information about the January, 1932 A.S.L.A. convention; close relations between the A.S.L.A. and Senators Arthur Robinson and Morris Sheppard; and Republican and Democratic platform planks advocating legalization of 2.75% beer. Following the November, 1932 election, fear of Prohibition repeal culminated in A.S.L.A. cooperation with the W.C.T.U. in sponsoring a "Resist Repeal" convention in Washington, D.C., December 9-11.

Correspondence for January-June, 1933 deals largely with the fight against the 21st Amendment, including charges that it was unconstitutional, discussion of methods to prevent repeal, and attacks on state ratification convention procedures. There was still some interest in incorporation of the League, possibly due to continuing financial difficulties. From July to December, correspondence focuses on the repeal movement, particularly the alleged unconstitutionality of repeal conventions and charges of fraud in elections to the conventions. The A.S.L.A. at first had tried to stop the entire repeal process, but then attempted to win the elections in order to defeat ratification. Correspondence indicates that the League concentrated its efforts in Missouri, Maine, Arizona and Ohio.