As of July 1, 1919, the U.S. was under the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act. Things continued apace in Snyder County in the first half of the year. Fifteen of the sixteen retail license holders from 1918 reapplied, hoping to take advantage of the last three months of freely-flowing liquor. Of course, it was hardly free. Despite the fact that the licenses ran from April 1 to only June 30, the high license fees remained. The Selinsgrove Times reported in January 1919 that licensees planned to charge their patrons more to make up for the steep cost. The liquor people feel they can make big money in the last three months, when almost any price can be had from some sources for drinks, noted the Times.
One month later, the state legislature passed a law that made liquor license fees payable on a monthly basis. It saved retailers $150 for borough licenses and $75 for township licenses. At the same time, a new federal law doubled the tax on alcoholic beverages, raising it to $6.40 per gallon. That was an enormous tax for the time period, and retailers responded by raising the price of a glass of beer from 5¢ to 10¢ and the price of a whiskey from 25¢ to 30¢. The era of legal alcohol in Pennsylvania went out with an expensive whimper.
The high license system persisted under national prohibition. Questions about whether near-beer required a license swirled through county courts and brewers’ trade associations in 1920. By the end of the summer, the state Attorney General issued a ruling: even beverages that fell below the national standard of 0.5% alcohol by volume required a license to dispense. State leaders of the Anti-Saloon League were encouraged, asking in April 1921, “Shall the laws of the land be enforced or not? And shall the State begin to do its part as provided by the National Constitution?” The state legislature passed the Woner Act in May 1921 to make it official.
The reach of that law didn’t necessary reach down to the county level. In the Union-Snyder judicial district, Judge Albert Johnson held that no licenses were required for “near-beer,” and several hotel-keepers continued to sell mildly alcoholic beverages. That came to end with the election of Miles Potter in November 1921. The campaign was typical of central Pennsylvania: full of innuendo, rumor, and allegations about opponents’ loyalties. At a quasi-town hall meeting in a Lewisburg church in October 1921, insurance agent A.D. Miller stood to accuse Potter of being in the pocket of local brewing interests. Miller alleged that Potter promised Snyder County licenses for votes and had received $75,000 from brewers who had met clandestinely in Sunbury. Potter was in attendance that afternoon, and he replied sharply about Miller’s lack of evidence. Potter addressed the crowd, assuring them that he was not in cahoots with the liquor interests. A few more attacks followed in the following weeks, but Potter won in November.
I stand by my public pledge, made in the Beaver Memorial Church in Lewisburg during the primary campaign, that I will grant no liquor licenses. You may add I have every reason to believe the court is unanimously dry.—Miles Potter, January 1922
In early 1922, Snyder County became officially dry when Judge Potter declared that he would approve no licenses for the selling of near-beer that year. By claiming that the associate judges Ingram and Stetler shared his opinion, Potter effectively turned off the taps. There were no license applications that winter. The ban on alcohol was a part of Potter’s push to reform the county. As he gave local constables their charge on the first day of the February 1922 term, he declared, “I want gambling cleaned up in Snyder County….We don’t want any beer sold in Snyder County after today.“
But there WAS still beer being sold in the county. The first two targets of Potter’s crusade were new inn keepers in Shamokin Dam and Port Trevorton. In May, hoteliers Eugene Esterbrook and John Bargowere arrested for selling near beer. The previous owners of their establishments had given up three months earlier, when Potter made his decree. But, like many local cases of illegal sales during Prohibition, this case collapsed when it came before the court in October. Despite testimony from county investigator Monroe Miller, the grand jury found the evidence against Esterbrook and Bargo unconvincing. Two years later, in November 1924, Esterbrook was again implicated when a state policeman bought beer in his Port Trevorton establishment. Two local youths also testified that they had bought beer from Esterbrook earlier in the year.
Northumberland County continued to see liquor licenses dispensed, hundreds of them, in fact. Anti-saloon activists still issued remonstrances against specific establishments, but the vast majority of saloons and hotels had their licenses processed without delay.
When Gifford Pinchot won the gubernatorial election in November 1922, he supported legislation to repeal the Woner Act and do away with licensed saloons altogether. The proposed bill would also strengthen the state’s search and seizure powers, particularly its ability to force the owners of warehouses to open up their doors to law enforcement officers. Departing Governor William Sproul used his farewell address in January 1923 to admit that, “it is a patent fact that prohibition enforcement laws are not working well in Pennsylvania.” With that speech still echoing in Pennsylvanians’ ears, Pinchot diverted $250,000 to establish a plainclothes state police program to infiltrate saloons and hotels serving liquor. His proposed legislation passed narrowly in March 1923, making the rest of the state officially as dry as Snyder County.
But official prohibition didn’t necessarily translate into a world without alcohol. A lack of efective enforcement in rural areas like the Central Susquehanna Valley meant that booze was still available for the interested. The Selinsgrove Timesnoted in September 1923 that beer was more available than ever before. “Instead of being confined to licensed stands,” the paper reported, “it is being sold wherever any bootblack or any other so-called business man cares to handle the line.”
To make matters worse, grand juries refused to indict those who had been arrested for illegal sales, even in the face of clear evidence that they had broken the law. Now, even the traditional norms of the liquor trade, such as no sales on Sundays or on Election Day, were broken without much public commentary.