By Tom Collins

The 16th Territorial Governor, Joseph H. Kibbey, kicked off the 24th Territorial Legislature in 1907 by demanding the abolishment of gambling which he viewed not only as a public evil but also an impediment to statehood for Arizona. He knew he had to improve the territory’s wild reputation before that goal could be accomplished. Two members of the Territorial Council (the upper house) followed Kibbey’s lead by introducing anti-gambling bills.

One bill was introduced by Eugene Brady O’Neill ("Buckey" O’Neill’s brother) of Mojave County. Section 1 of his bill subjected owners, proprietors, and employees who conducted gambling of all sorts to a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $300, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Section 2 of the bill provided the same punishment for proprietors who suffered or permitted gambling in their establishments (Miner, Jan. 25, 1907).

The second bill, introduced by George W. P. Hunt of Gila County, specified a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1000 plus imprisonment in the county jail until the fine and costs were paid with said jail time not to exceed six months. His bill went a step further to repeal the previous provision of licensing of gambling establishments. The wiping out of this section left the gamblers fully and inevitably exposed to the punishment described in the preceding section (The Arizona Republican, January 30, 1907).

While the majority of citizens approved such legislation, Hunt’s bill was not devoid of controversy. All three representatives from Yavapai County – G. W. Hull of Jerome, Roy N. Davidson of Crown King and Dennis A. Burke of Prescott – voted against it. This prompted J. W. Milnes, editor of the Arizona Journal-Miner, to take them to task. "Deeply as we deplore the circumstances, the fact can no longer be disguised that the representatives of Yavapai County in the Lower House of the Legislature are a painful disappointment. The three men who apparently misrepresent this county are Burke, Davidson and Hull – two Democrats and one Republican. All made fine promises to the people during the campaign, but so far we fail to find that their voice or their votes have been in favor of legislation that was for the public welfare. When the anti-gambling bill was before the House, this trio cast their lot with the gamblers." (February 17, 1907)

Why did they do so? As the co-owner of the Hotel Burke on Whiskey Row and a good friend of many a saloonkeeper, Burke may have been placing business before morality. In addition, the "trio" must have recognized that fees for gambling licenses had been a significant source of income for education, with $67,867.08 collected for the fiscal year ending in June of 1906 (Miner of February 2, 1907). "This amount was turned over to the credit of the school funds of the various counties and expended for educational purposes according to law." If gambling were to be abolished, territorial schools would suffer legislative cutbacks in funding. The inevitable result would be the raising of taxes for the general public to offset the loss.

Even with some opposition, the House of Representatives and the Council passed Hunt’s bill by a two-thirds majority, abolishing gambling in the Territory, with Governor Kibbey signing it into law on January 31, 1907 to become effective April 1st. All efforts to postpone implementation to July 1st had failed.

In February 1909, Frank J. Duffy of Santa Cruz County introduced a new bill reinforcing the 1907 bill. Section 1 forbade any city, town or village to license the carrying on of gambling or the operation of any gambling establishment. Section 2 convicted gamblers themselves of misdemeanor. Section 3 similarly convicted proprietors or owners who permitted gambling in their establishments. Section 4 provided that in any prosecution for a violation of Section 3 no person would be exempt or excused from testifying because by so testifying he might incriminate himself.

Despite passage of the bill, gambling continued unabated in Prescott. When District Attorney Henry D. Ross arrived home from an extended visit in the east, he was surprised to learn that many proprietors of resorts where games of chance were played professed to believe "that it was not in violation of law to gamble until they were officially informed of the provisions of the new law." (Miner, March 2, 1909) Ross maintained that the Duffy bill had become law as of February 20th and that the law affected all sections of the territory alike and carried notice to everyone in its provisions to obey it. It was not compulsory on the part of law officers, he asserted, to provide proprietors or gamblers with official notice. In compliance with Ross’s orders, as of March 1, 1909, card playing in all Prescott saloons was suspended and nearly all the tables were removed. The faces of the slot machines were turned toward the wall. "The general impression," concluded the Miner on March 2, 1909, "is that all games of chance are closed here and that no attempt will be made to disobey the law, which has been published in a recent issue of the Journal-Miner."

S. E. Day, member of the Council in the 25th Legislative Assembly, managed to pass a substitute for the Duffy law in March 1909. According to the Day substitute, dice shaking and card games in saloons for certain games "are allowed when not played for money. Among the games not specified are hearts, whist, solo, pangingi and pitch." Whether intended or not, the Day measure, while it reputedly left the anti-gambling law practically as it was before the legislature met (Miner, March 27, 1909), may have "lifted the lid" on gambling. There was now a loophole through which proprietors could squeeze.

Law officers continued to turn a blind eye to many violations for the next several decades. Nonetheless, Governor Kibbey’s moral imperative was substantially realized for nearly 81 years. Not until 1988 did the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act legally revive gambling in Arizona on Indian reservations, provided that the tribes open "Las Vegas-style" gambling facilities and reach an agreement with the state. The Secretary of the Interior had to determine that the gaming facility was not detrimental to the local community and to ensure that the tribe secured the consent of the governor. Governors Kibbey and Hunt, who died in 1924 and 1934 respectively, did not live to witness the new legislative compromise giving a partial victory to the gaming industry. Their noble, but Puritanical experiment in prohibition ultimately failed, proving that big government could not indefinitely legislate private morality. The advent of Indian gaming was not only an economic victory for Arizona’s native peoples but was also a victory for freedom of choice.

(Tom Collins, a Professor Emeritus of Theatre, is the author of "Stage-Struck Settlers in the Sun-Kissed Land," a history of the amateur theatre in Territorial Prescott. He is a volunteer in the archives at Sharlot Hall Museum.)

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(st122pa) Reuse only by permission.

Montezuma Street in Prescott, aka Whiskey Row, had many drinking and gambling establishments in 1907 when the anti-gambling bill was introduced.

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(po2379p) Reuse only by permission.

Legislator Dennis A. Burke, co-owner of the Hotel Burke in Prescott, voted against the anti-gambling bill in 1907. In 1903, Burke was Mayor of Prescott and is seen here (at left) at the Prescott train depot with U. S. Congressman William Randolph Hearst on his swing through the West.

Sharlot Hall Museum Photograph Call Number:(po0541.1p) Reuse only bypermission.

District Attorney, H. D. Ross, was instrumental in bringing down the final curtain for gambling in Prescott in March of 1909. Games of chance were closed and the law was substantially upheld until 1988 when Indian gaming was legalized.