In May 1887, by two-to-one majorities in both houses, the Pennsylvania legislature passed the Brooks High License Law. The Brooks law replaced what the Philadelphia Times called a “loose, confused, and unsatisfactory” licensing system. The 1880s were the age of high license laws, by which alcohol dealers paid steep (“high”) fees to license establishments for the sale of “‘spirituous, vinous, malt, and brewed liquors.” Nebraska lawmakers passed the first high license law in the United States in 1881. Six years later, Pennsylvania followed suit. The Brooks law abandoned volume of sales as the criteria by which dealers were charged for licenses and replaced it with the population of the area in which the establishment was located. The resulting fees were massive for the late nineteenth century:
| AREA | COST OF LICENSE |
| city w/ pop > 30,000 | $500 |
| city w/ pop < 30,000 | $400 |
| borough | $200 |
| township | $100 |
The same licenses covered the sale of beer and distilled spirits. The law also set the venue of decision-making about licenses as the county courts of quarter sessions (catch-all courts that handled civil and all but the most serious of criminal cases, named for meeting four times a year). Among the many provisions of the Brooks Law were rules against Sunday sales, “working the growler” (a working-class practice of filling up large buckets or jugs with beer, for consumption off-site),
The political battle over alcohol in the 1910s cannot be understood except in the context of the Brooks High License Law. Although it may seem far removed — given that it became law almost thirty years earlier — the license law set the terms of the prohibition fight. Even before its passage in 1887, four main political positions had emerged: (1) the strong anti-alcohol position (PROHIBITION advocates), (2) the moderate anti-alcohol position (TEMPERANCE advocates), (3) the moderate pro-alcohol position (LICENSING advocates), and (4) the strong pro-alcohol position (DEREGULATION advocates). The #2 and #3 groups tended to agree on high licensing as the most realistic solution to the problem of over-drinking. The idea was that charging high fees would reduce the number of establishments serving alcohol, and thus reduce the amount of drinking. Licensing advocates also pointed to the revenue that state, county, and local governments accrued through the fees. These funds, they noted, could be used toward the care of drunkards and the prosecution of violators. Prohibition advocates tended to see high licensing as a partial solution at best, arguing that it gave alcohol dealers a veneer of legal respectability but allowed for all sorts of malfeasance. And those who believed in deregulation argued that the sale and purchase of alcohol was a freedom that should not be suppressed by any government.
By all accounts, Pennsylvania counties administered the high license system well — and that was a problem for all prohibition advocates and many temperance advocates. As national approval rates for full (“bone-dry”) prohibition increased after 1900, criticisms of the Brooks Law became louder. In 1913, the Anti-Saloon League noted about the Brooks Law, “there could scarcely be a worse one from the standpoint of temperance reform.” George Wallace Williams, a state legislator from Tioga County, declared in 1915 that the Brooks Law had subverted democracy at the local level [see excerpt]. Even when a majority of local voters appealed for prohibition, quarter session judges could choose to approve alcohol licenses in their counties. For prohibition advocates like Williams, the local option was the only option. Under this system, counties—or boroughs, or townships—would be able to prohibit all sale of alcohol without resorting to the discretion of a license court. Of course, the local option looked like a vast overreach for those who were happy with the Brooks Law. One state representative, Miles Kitts of Erie, chided his dry colleagues in 1915:
If you do not want liquor, for God’s sake leave it alone. But I deny your right to tell me what or when I shall drink. I consider it no man’s business when I desire to do this. Are you my keeper? Is my soul in your charge? You “drys” say we “wets” cannot have the vile stuff. Do we “wets” ever say to you “drys,” “here, come along, you’ve got to drink it, whether you want it or not?” Why, would it not be fair to have local option on coca cola, ice cream, doughnuts, pink tea parties, and bridge whist?
Working alongside the high license system was an semi-formal system of local enforcement intended to keep liquor out of the hands of the most intemperate. Borough officials, county sheriffs, and district attorneys compiled “jag lists” of residents, usually men, who should not be served alcohol at area establishments. The men on the list were considered “common drunkards,” and getting caught selling to one of them could cost retailers their license.