Foreword: When alcohol prohibition was imposed in states and in the Nation distillers and whiskey dealers often were prepared. Some shipped their liquor abroad. Others sold it at steep discounts to private customers. Some, however, found themselves still owning large supplies and nowhere to go with them. A handful of those whiskey men (and at least one woman) were spurred to take illegal action, known generally as “bootlegging.” As will be seen, such efforts seldom were successful.
In 1916 Doores’ Warren County like other localities in Kentucky went “dry.” In a crack down on what local law enforcement called “bootlegging,” police attention was drawn to the former liquor dealer in December 1917. Doores was arrested and hauled into court for having carried from Louisville to Bowling Green several gallon jugs and some pint flasks of whiskey, concealing them in four suitcases. The authorities charged that the whiskey in his possession was to be sold. His arrest made headlines throughout the American Midwest. The Cincinnati Enquirer opined: “Doores probably is the most prominent man who yet has been arrested in Kentucky on a charge of peddling liquor into a dry burg.”
I have been unable to find the disposition of the charges against Doores. In those days individuals with considerably less political clout, even if found guilty, often were left off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. We can assume that was the worst that might have befallen Doores.
When his father died in 1904 and left him in control of the family distillery in Tell City, Indiana, William Krogman was well prepared to succeed in the whiskey trade. As “dry” forces closed in on the production and sale of alcohol, however, Krogman’s markets slowly dried up along with profits. Finally, the advent of National Prohibition caused the distillery to shut down completely.
Krogman found the situation difficult to accept. Sealed by federal order, his warehouses were full of aging whiskey. The temptation proved to be too strong for William. With four others, including two former Tell City town marshals and an ex-sheriff of Perry County, Krogman hatched a plot to rob the his distillery warehouse. They carried it out in August 1921. In short order Krogman and his cohorts were identified by federal authorities and arrested. 
Summoned into Federal Court in Indianapolis, Krogman and his four accomplices were charged with conspiracy. As the presumed ringleader, Krogman’s bail was set at $3,000 (equivalent to $65,000 today.) The others paid lesser amounts. I am unable to find the outcome of the arrests, but in many cases such offenses were treated leniently even by the U.S. courts and the perpetrators let off with fines. The rationale could reasonably have been that Krogman was only trying to purloin liquor that actually was his. William continued to own the Krogman properties during the “dry” years but died in 1832 and never saw the Repeal of the 18th Amendment.
Having inherited operation of a successful Anderson County, Kentucky, distillery Mary Dowling was not about to let National Prohibition interfere with her liquor trade. Her illegal business worked until 1924 when revenue agents set a trap for her. She was operating both out of her home and from an office next to two distillery warehouses, supposedly sealed, in which large quantities of liquor were stored. Federal agents arrived with two “turncoat” bootleggers in their automobiles, men who had done business with Mary in the past. The agents watched as the bootleggers entered the house and bought out two sacks of whiskey, each containing a dozen bottles. They waited until the sacks were placed in one of the autos, then searched and seized them, as their stool -pigeons reputedly ‘fessed up. The “sting” had worked. The agents then entered the Dowling home with search warrants.
In the basement they found and seized 478 sacks, each holding 12 quarts of whiskey, exactly like the ones deposited in the bootlegger’s car. They confiscated the liquor and arrested members of the Dowling family, including three of Mary’s sons. As a court record later narrated, she contended that the whiskey had been there before Prohibition and was “to be for the use of family and guests, whom she entertained on a large scale.”
The Dowlings were prosecuted for a conspiracy to possess, transport, and sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act. There ensued three years of court cases both in Kentucky and Federal courts as Mary through her attorneys contended that the search warrant was flawed, criminal charges should be dropped, and the seized liquor returned. An initial trial was adjourned when she became sick. The indictment was renewed by the government in 1925 and this time the Mary and her sons were convicted. Then fate intervened. Upon an appeal of the conviction to the U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals, it was found that the stenographer who had taken the record of the earlier trial had died and no one could read his notes. That was enough for the Circuit Court and they threw out the convictions.
Meanwhile Mary Dowling had hatched a new -- and more successful -- business plan. About 1926 she hired Joseph Beam, one of Kentucky’s premier distillers but now out of work, to dismantle her distillery, transport the pieces to Juarez, Mexico, reassemble it there, and resume making whiskey. Mexico had no prohibition so liquor production was completely legal. Her whiskey was sold to American tourists who were allowed to bring it over the border. In addition, a significant amount found its way onto the U.S. market, allegedly for “medicinal use.” No one seemed to know how it got here. But Mary did.
Note: Longer articles on each of these three individuals may be found on this blog: J. T. Doores, January 26, 2015; William Krogman, December 6, 2014, and Mary Dowling, January 22, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment