Liquor in Oberlin After Prohibition’s Repeal
Oberlin as a community has a complex history as it relates to alcohol, with the town majority condemning alcohol for much of its early history. The 18th Amendment, also known as Prohibition, was ratified January 16, 1919, to much local cheering. After fourteen years as law, it was repealed December 5, 1933 with the ratification of the 21st Amendment. Like many Oberlinians, international business magnate and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller was concerned with what laws and regulations would be put in place to control the liquor industry after repeal. He commissioned Raymond Fosdick and Albert Scott to conduct a study into international regulations that might help determine liquor laws across the United States with the return of legal alcohol.
The study, published in the book Toward Liquor Control, was concerned with creating a policy guideline for states who now had to decide how they would regulate liquor. The authors argued that the most important part of a liquor control policy was that it responded to local needs and had local support. Favoring this “local option,” the authors proposed the best solution would be that the counties and municipalities should vote on whether they would be “wet” (allowing the sale of liquor in their area) or “dry” (not allowing liquor). Their policy recommendation for state-level control was the “authority plan,” where the state would buy liquor from manufacturers and sell it themselves, doing away with private sellers. They argued that during the Depression, the government was much more involved in business and a precedent was set for expanding into the liquor industry.
However, Fosdick and Scott recognized that not all states would be able or willing to adopt the authority plan and argued that licensing was the next best policy. Under a licensing system, manufacturers would not be permitted to sell alcohol to consumers and sellers would have to acquire a renewable license, thus allowing the state to control the number of liquor outlets in an area. On March 30, 1933, the State Liquor Control Act was passed in Ohio. Ohio adopted a combination plan, where there were both licenses and state-run stores. The law allowed liquor licenses to be packaged in a few ways — licenses permitting on-premise consumption of beer and wine, licenses permitting the sale of carryout beer and wine, licenses for establishments selling “full liquor,” and licenses for state-run liquor stores. There were eight types of permits that could be obtained in Ohio:
- D-1 Permit: 3.2% beer on and off premises
- D-2 Permit: 6% beer, wine and bottled cocktails up to 42 proof
- D-3 Permit: liquor until 1 a.m. closing
- D-3A Permit: liquor until 2:30 a.m. closing
- D-4 Permit: liquor for a club
- D-5 Permit: full liquor license
- D-5A Permit: full liquor license for a hotel/motel operation
- D-6 Permit: Sunday liquor license
When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, a local ordinance was passed to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in Oberlin. The City Solicitor at the time claimed that the ordinance was legal under the Crabbe and Miller Acts, two substance control acts passed on the state and federal level, respectively. The Crabbe Act of 1919, a state law, controlled liquor and created legislation on how to enforce prohibition in Ohio. However, the Crabbe Act was effectively overturned in 1927 in Tumey v. Ohio, due to the fact that the compensation that officials received for arresting those who violated Prohibition was deemed unconstitutional and blocking due process, and the remaining portions of the Act only covered D-3 through D-6 permits. The Miller Act, better known as the Jones-Miller Act or the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922, was a federal law controlling the import and creation of opium in the United States. It is unclear whether the local ordinance was liquor-specific or sought to control all drugs in Oberlin as well. Regardless of the actual legality of the ordinance, it was accepted by the town as de facto law for the next twenty years. In 1954, there were five total establishments with licenses to serve 3.2% beer and none selling any other type of liquor.
Attitudes on liquor in Oberlin had been formed early and were sustained through the first half of the 1900s. Esther Taylor Bliss, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) president from 1945-1976 was often found in the opinions section of the News-Tribune spelling out the moral imperative to keep Oberlin dry. Other dry proponents joined her, arguing that keeping Oberlin dry gave the town a unique character that made the town more attractive to families and was good for students. There were dissidents — of the approximately 4,300 Oberlin residents, 584 voted for the repeal of prohibition in 1933 — but the dissidents seemed to operate as individuals and didn’t seem to form any organization to promote action.
However, in the surrounding wet Russia Township (now called New Russia Township since 1992), seven licenses for beer and wine were available in 1951. One popular establishment with a beer and wine license was Presti’s, a family-run Italian restaurant that had obtained its beer and wine license when it opened in 1937 and sat just off the border of Oberlin. In February 1956, Oberlin’s City Council moved to annex a portion of land west of Oberlin and excluded Presti’s by drawing a U shape around the property. The WCTU opposed the annexation — while they and other dry proponents recognized that Presti’s would not be brought into the city and made to replace their 6% beer and wine with 3.2% beer, they argued that the proposal would set a precedent for allowing alcohol in Oberlin without technically letting alcohol in Oberlin, and argued that Oberlin should reduce the area of land that it would annex. The City Council argued that it would be unfair to put Presti’s out of business after they had recently invested in expanding their dining room, and that they could not change the area of annexed land, as they only approved what was recommended to them.
The City approved the annexation, despite the protest of the WCTU and 323 people who had signed their petition. Presti’s was allowed to continue serving. On October 25, 1956, Presti’s received a license from Russia Township to serve hard liquor, which they had applied for in the years before the annexation plan was put forth. Since they were technically not in Oberlin, the WCTU could not affect them without putting a local option on the Russia Township ballot.The WCTU put out a survey asking the public whether they would vote wet or dry, hoping to put local option questions on the ballot in November. They received only 60 responses back, of which 50% said that they would vote wet. Taylor told the Oberlin Review that they had decided the time wasn’t right to have the town vote.
Then, in May 1957, two businesses in Oberlin—Fischer’s Supermarket and Don’s Place—applied for liquor licenses. It then became public knowledge that to be completely dry, Oberlin was required to put local option questions up for referendum and have a public vote. Taylor told the Oberlin News-Tribune that she was not surprised — she had learned in January of that year that Oberlin’s ordinance only prevented D-3, D-4, and D-5 permits under state law, and that D-2 permits, which authorized the sale of 6% beer and wine, were legal in Oberlin. In 1959, the WCTU petitioned to have a local option election in Oberlin. Oberlin voters answered five questions in the booths, but the first question, “Should the sale of intoxicating liquor be permitted in Oberlin?” received a resounding “No” vote of 1318 no to 648 yes, making the other questions moot. Oberlin was legally dry, save for the continued sale of 3.2% beer. The local option question was put on the ballot again through the next decades as businesses in Oberlin tried to capitalize on the profit that could be made through liquor. The Oberlin Inn was one of the establishments that saw a path from liquor to a balanced budget, and with the backing of the College, managed to get the town just a little bit wet.
The Inn’s financial troubles began in 1975 when the College assumed financial responsibility for the Inn after the retirement of Richard Homstead, who had leased and operated the Inn for almost three decades.22 After a million dollar expansion project added 45 new rooms to the Inn in 1970 for a total of 80 rooms, by 1975, the Inn was operating only at 60 percent occupancy and had finished the year with a deficit of $53,000.23. For the previous twenty years, the Oberlin Inn had relied on corporate groups using the hotel for weekly training programs; but in 1976, Bell Telephone Co. did not renew their contract and began sending groups only once a month. In April 1976, the Inn was averaging only thirty percent occupancy, and the financial director of the College began sounding the alarm. The Inn finished 1976 with a $210,000 deficit. In an effort to stave off some of the deficit, the Inn got a license to serve 3.2% beer in their dining room in June of 1976.
On July 22, 1976, Richard Armon, the Director of Oberlin College Food Service, who also oversaw the Oberlin Inn, asked the residents of Oberlin to sign a petition to put alcohol sales on the ballot in Oberlin. Armon received the 678 signatures required to put the item on the ballot, and four questions were put up for vote in November. Armon encouraged voters to vote yes to question two, which would allow the sale and consumption of beer and wine on the premises of locations that obtained a liquor license. Armon was against the first and third questions, which legalized carryout stores for beer and wine as well as “full liquor” establishments like taverns and cocktail bars. Despite this, he said he would remain neutral on the fourth question, which would allow a state-run liquor store in Oberlin.
Taylor, then a resident at Welcome Nursing Home, wrote against voting in “full liquor,” arguing that the Liquor Commission in Columbus would be making decisions on licensing with no stakes in nor knowledge of Oberlin. Helen Domonkos established in the opinions section that there would be 46 total liquor licenses available in Oberlin, but that this figure did not represent the number of bars that would be able to open in Oberlin, as each establishment would need multiple licenses to serve different forms of liquor. In Oberlin, one state liquor license, nine carry-out stores, five restaurants or taverns that could sell beer and wine for consumption on and off premises, three hotels or restaurants licensed to sell liquor by the glass, and three nightclubs which could remain open until 2:30am could be licensed. According to Oberlin resident and the state senator at the time, Don J. Pease, there would be a possibility for about 20 establishments to open.
Marion J. Campbell led the anti-liquor effort in 1976, after the News-Tribune implied that no one other than 86-year-old Taylor would rise to the occasion. Campbell argued that nearby towns had been overrun with taverns, liquor stores, and clubs with anecdotal evidence of increased crime. In October, pro-dry events began being organized. On October 10, dry proponents spoke at First Church in a presentation that Armon was permitted to participate in. Campbell repeated the anecdotal evidence provided by Rudy Neumann, Police Chief of Wellington, that Oberlin would have increased crime if the measure passed. Neumann worked as a police officer in Oberlin before becoming police chief in Wellington and mentioned that taverns near the Apollo Theatre and East Lorain Street were “rowdy”. The Oberlin News-Tribune noted that Armon expected about 600-700 students to vote for liquor in the November election.
On October 21, the News-Tribune took an official position, urging voters to vote against the liquor items as they believed that if any item was approved, eventually all would be approved, and that the state would take control away from Oberlin because the state would decide who gets a liquor license. The Oberlin Review encouraged passing questions 1, 2, and 4 in an editorial on October 19, arguing that liquor was well-regulated with state stores and restaurants and would not change the character of the town. Cynthia Stewart, OC ’73, tried to reach Oberlin students by holding an anti-liquor rally on October 17 in Tappan Square. Stewart felt that the only reason the election might be “close” would be because students vote wet. Only six students attended the event.
Lou Rotuno, owner of Convenient Food Mart on South Lorain Street, argued in the opinions section of the News-Tribune that question 1, which allowed the sale of beer and wine for carry-out, should be approved because Oberlin residents already buy beer and wine for private consumption from locations just outside of town, and that it would support Oberlin’s economy if the already existing purchases were made in Oberlin. On October 28, Robert E. Briggs III, the manager of the Oberlin Inn who just started that previous August, stated his pro-wet position, arguing that the Inn was a public service to the community that could be lost without liquor. First Church’s social action committee entered 70 names of individuals who were planning to vote ‘no’ into the paper.
All four items were voted down, with the greatest opposition to question 3, liquor by the drink. Ward 4, which included the mainly residential southwestern corner of Oberlin had the strongest opposition in all four categories. Ward 3, of which most students lived in 3C, had the closest votes except on liquor by the drink. The College had taken no official position on the liquor item, and according to the News-Tribune, did not help Armon with the campaign. The College ultimately responded to the deficit by severing ties with Systems Services, Inc, the company who had been managing the Inn, in December 1977. The Inn had undergone frequent personnel changes in the years leading up to the liquor issue and the College appointed William Dwyer as manager of the Inn at the end of 1977. The liquor item could not be on the ballot for another four years, and Dwyer quickly became adept at advertising the Oberlin Inn as a good place to get work done without distractions.
In the 1980s, Oberlin College VP of Business and Finance Dayton Livingston and Dwyer came up with a new approach. They hoped to create legislation that would allow a vote to approve only one permit for a hotel of fifty or more rooms and would not allow any other permits to be on the ballot — thus making Oberlin a little bit wet. They also hoped to reduce the number of voters who would be voting on the issue to just the precinct that the Inn was in. In past elections, the local option questions became a rallying point for Oberlin, creating a sense of town identity that revolved around what keeping liquor out did for the town. They argued that the Inn was a benefit to the town that could be lost if Oberlin was kept dry. Livingston reached out to the Ohio Hotel and Motel Association for support from a state-level group on the legislation. While it is unclear whether the Ohio Hotel and Motel Association supported the legislation, in 1985 the Inn was able to put an item on the ballot that would allow the Inn to serve liquor without opening the town to other liquor licenses. The item was only voted on by residents of the precinct that the Inn was within. The item passed 104 to 36. This vote set a precedent and paved the way for other Oberlin businesses to pursue liquor licenses.
In August of 1998, Joe Waltzer, who had just graduated from Oberlin College that spring, brought forward a request for a D-2 liquor license to serve beer and wine at his new restaurant, Black River Cafe, located at 15 S. Main Street. He collected 137 signatures from precinct 2-A in August, allowing the item to be put on the ballot on November 3. Jai Wei, owner of both the Tea and Noodle House and the Mandarin, joined Waltzer on the ballot, asking voters of precinct 3-B to vote in favor of a D-2 license. In precinct 3-B, residents voted in favor of D-2 licenses and also allowed D-4 and D-5 licenses, which would allow private clubs and nightclubs. The Foxgrape Café, owned by Alana Kelley, had already applied, and Gibson’s Bakery joined them in February 1999, applying for an on-premise wine license. On March 30, 1999, a D-5 license was issued to the Tea and Noodle House. They were given “nightclub” status, meaning that they could serve beer, wine and liquor until 2:30 a.m. The Ohio Liquor Control Board confirmed that more licenses were to come. Oberlin was finally wet and business owners saw it as an opportunity to revitalize the downtown area.
While arguments surrounding Oberlin’s dry status were often rooted in economics on both sides, a shift in what residents felt liquor would do for the character of the town ultimately led Oberlin to allow liquor in the town. Initially, dry proponents argued that liquor would bring crime and would put an end to Oberlin’s unique vibe from which they believed families, students, and visitors benefitted. Liquor eventually became seen by some residents as one way to make Oberlin’s downtown vibrant and competitive. The Oberlin WCTU concentrated its efforts on Oberlin rather than Russia Township. They used local opinion to their advantage, concentrating their efforts on the area that would vote on the item. The wet proponents eventually learned from the WCTU, and seeing that they could not sway the opinion of a unified Oberlin, they sought to make local option even more local – to an area that might not have strong dry proponents ready to rally for a precinct to uphold the town’s historic identity. Since both shifts happened in tandem, it is difficult to identify which had a greater influence.
Written by Cal Ransom, OC ’23, in May 2023
For more information about Oberlin’s commitment to temperance beginning in the 19th century, we recommend the book Elusive Utopia by Gary Kornblith and Carol Lasser.
Footnotes + Sources:
Levine, Harry G., “The Birth of American Alcohol Control: Prohibition, the Power Elite and the Problem of Lawlessness,” Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring, 1985
Raymond B. Fosdick and Albert L. Scott, Toward Liquor Control, (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1933).
“State Liquor Control Act,” State Liquor Control Act – Ohio History Central, Ohio History Connection, accessed April 15, 2023, https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/State_Liquor_Control_Act.
“Oberlin to Remain Dry Under Laws,” Oberlin News Tribune, December 8, 1933.
“Crabbe Act,” Crabbe Act – Ohio History Central, Ohio History Connection, accessed May 13, 2023, https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Crabbe_Act.
“TOPN: Jones-Miller Act (Narcotics Import and Export),” Legal Information Institute, accessed May 13, 2023, https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/jones-miller_act_narcotics_import_and_export.
Anthony A Rutkoski, “Letter to Esther B. Taylor, 123 Forest Street, Oberlin, Ohio 5 April 1954,” Lloyd William and Esther Bliss Taylor Papers, c. 1895-1980, accessed May 12, 2023, https://taylorfamilies.net/history/LWT/esther/.
“Oberlin Goes Against Wet Amendment by Small Majority,” Oberlin News-Tribune, November 10, 1933.
William C. Bryant, “Letter to Esther B. Taylor, 123 Forest Street, Oberlin, Ohio 6 Feb 1952,” Lloyd William and Esther Bliss Taylor Papers, c. 18955-1980, accessed May 12, 2023, https://taylorfamilies.net/history/LWT/esther/.
“Gene Presti, oral history interview by Nancy Gray, August 19, 2008, Oberlin Oral History Project, Oberlin Heritage Center, Oberlin, OH.
“Final Approval of Annexation Seen by Feb. 20,” Oberlin News-Tribune, February 9, 1956.
Lloyd Taylor, “Writer Cites Concern Over Petition to Move Town Nearer to Tavern,” Oberlin News-Tribune, January 26, 1956.
“Final Approval of Annexation Seen by Feb. 20,” Oberlin News-Tribune, February 9, 1956.
“City Takes Final Step to Annex West End,” Oberlin News-Tribune, February 23, 1956.
“To Annex or Not to Annex? That’s Council’s Big Question,” Oberlin News Tribune, January 19, 1956.
“‘Cup That Cheers’ Does Not Cheer Everyone as Presti’s Tavern Gets Liquor License,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 25, 1956.
“50% Would Halt Booze Sale in Oberlin, WCTU Poll Shows,” Oberlin News-Tribune, April 25, 1957.
A.G. Stokey, “Townspeople Dispute Issue of Local Liquor Licenses,” Oberlin Review, May 10, 1957.
Jim Fixx, “Dry Vote Would Bring Crime, Bootlegging, Bar Owner Says,” Oberlin News-Tribune, May 2, 1957.
Roy E. Hopple, “Letter of Esther B. Taylor, 123 Forest Street, Oberlin, Ohio,” Lloyd William and Esther Bliss Taylor Papers, c. 18955-1980, accessed 12 May 2023, https://taylorfamilies.net/history/LWT/esther/.
“Results of Tuesday’s Election,” Oberlin News-Tribune, November 5, 1959.
Cynthia Evans, “Oberlin Inn Finances Healthy for Half Year,” Oberlin News-Tribune, March 22, 1979.
Glenn Miller, “OC Concerned over Inn’s Occupancy,” Chronicle-Telegram. April 19, 1976.
Hal Straus, “Inn Averaging Thirty Percent Capacity,” Oberlin Review, April 16, 1976.
“Oberlin Inn Shifts Management Again,” Oberlin News-Tribune, January 27, 1977.
“Inn to Start Serving Beer in Dining Room,” Oberlin News-Tribune, June 24, 1976.
“Oberlin Local Option Committee,” advertisement, Oberlin News-Tribune, July 22, 1976.
“904 Sign for Vote on Liquor,” Oberlin News-Tribune, August 5, 1976.
Esther Bliss Taylor, “Letter to the Editor,” Oberlin News-Tribune, September 9, 1976.
Helen Domonkos, “Letter to the Editor,” Oberlin News-Tribune, September 9, 1976.
“Both Sides Confident in Liquor Debate,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 14, 1976.
Marion J. Campbell, “Letter to the Editor,” Oberlin News-Tribune, September 9, 1976
“As We Said before… We’re Better off Dry,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 21, 1976.
William Johnston, “Anti-Liquor Rally Pulls Six Students,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 21, 1976.
Lou Rotuno, “Vote ‘Yes’ on Part 1, Urges Lou Rotuno,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 28, 1976.
without
Robert E. Briggs, “Inn Manager States Case for ‘Yes’ Vote,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 28, 1976.
Derri Sturges, “Carter, All Levies Win Here, Liquor Loses Again, Margin Big,” Oberlin News-Tribune, November 4, 1976.
Map, Oberlin College Archives, (Lorain, Ohio: Lorain County Board of Elections, 1969).
“Both Sides Confident in Liquor Debate,” Oberlin News-Tribune, October 14, 1976.
Julie Conry, “Inn Finds Room to Improve,” Oberlin Review, December 2, 1977.
Evans, “Oberlin Inn Finances Healthy for Half Year.”
Brian Miller, “Oberlin Gets ‘Wet’ at Inn,” The Chronicle Telegram, November 6, 1985.
“Unofficial Tabulation of Tuesday’s Election,” Oberlin News Tribune, November 7, 1985.
Margo Lipschultz, “Long Term Business Joins the Crowd,” The Oberlin Review, February 12,1999.