XXIX. Major Offenses: Tavern Haunts
How were all these liquors obtained? Not infrequently
in a very furtive and roundabout way. As early
as 1825, a lame free negro named Ben was caught by the
proctor in the twilight of the cellar of pavilion I selling
fermented spirits to the students. This man was, doubtless,
in collusion with the cook of the professor's family.
Three years afterwards, a similar dark cellar in one of
the houses situated not far from the precincts was also
turned into a bar-room, and owing to its proximity, it
was very liberally patronized by the young men. It was
from dens like this that a great quantity of liquor was
smuggled into the University in harmless looking baskets.
The chairman, on one occasion, suspecting a servant
of Conway's, stopped him on the walkway, and removing
the cover of his basket, found snugly hidden
away inside a bottle of rum and a bottle of whisky.
The proctor, about the same time, discovered a bottle of
rum and a bottle of wine in a basket which one of Mrs.
Gray's servants was carrying on his arm. But it was to
the taverns of Charlottesville that the young men went
for their principal supply of stimulants. One of the
most convenient of these was Mosby's, which stood apparently
close to the road leading down to the town.
Spotswood testified before the Faculty, in 1826, that the
students were in the habit of stopping here to enjoy a
glass, and he confessed that he never passed it that he
did not treat or was not treated by them. Other popular
taverns for drinking parties were Vowles's, Ward's
and Fitch's; and Boyd's also possessed a wide reputation
for the insinuating mixtures of its bar. Heiskell's was a
disreputable retail liquor dive situated very near the precincts.
The Faculty endeavored,—apparently in vain,
—to influence the court to refuse to reissue its license.
More censurable than even the taverns and the retail
shops were the confectioneries, all of which had obscure
backrooms for the accommodation of thirsty habitués;
and, indeed, they relied for profit more upon sales of
liquor to such patrons than upon sales of ice-cream,
sweetmeats, and fruits, or upon the income from their
eating tables. Among the earliest was Weidemeyer's,
where many scenes of drunkenness occurred. Garner's,
Toole's, Brown's and Miller's also enjoyed a profitable
share of the same bibulous and half subterranean custom.
But the most frequently mentioned in the records of the
University, at this stage of its history, was Keller's.
Keller was by trade a baker. Alexander Garrett, who
knew him personally, spoke of him as an "honest and
good-hearted man." "Mrs. Keller," he said, "was a
fine, neat, and industrious woman," and she also had
some claim to social consideration, for she was related
to the family of Dr. Foushee, a distinguished physician
of foreign extraction, long a highly respected citizen of
Richmond. The Faculty had numerous reasons for holding
this confectionery in low esteem, however meritorious
in character Garrett may have justly looked upon its owners
to be. As early as 1830, the students were warned to
be shy of the place, not only because all such shops were
banned by the ordinances, but also because this shop,
which stood not far beyond the precincts, was burningly
obnoxious as a chronic scene of disorder caused by the
sale of liquor in copious quantities. The chairman did
not mince his words in speaking of it: he denounced it
openly as a "dangerous den."
In the very first glimpse that we have of Keller's, eight
or ten students are discovered in a group near its door,
one of whom was so intoxicated, that, when a professor
was seen approaching in the distance, they were compelled
to pick up their helpless comrade, and carry him off at a
run to escape detection. The excuses offered by some
of the young men, when summoned for entering its portal,
were remarkable for variety, if not for veracity; one
had simply stepped in to get his cane before mounting his
horse; another to purchase candy and fruit; another to
drink a glass of soda-water; and another to eat oysters.
In 1834, rollicking champagne parties assembled here
and caroused to a late hour; and these scenes occurred
most frequently on Sunday night. Wine, whisky, and
brandy mixed with honey were all to be bought here at all
hours; and so flagrant grew the evil in time that the chairman
set a permanent watchman opposite the door, with
instructions to report the name of every student who
should enter. The scandal finally reached such a height
that Keller was threatened with indictment by the grand
jury, and in his apprehension, he offered to give bond
that, during the remainder of the session, he would decline
to sell liquor and would only sell soda-water, ice-cream,
and sweetmeats. Six members of the Faculty
favored acceptance of this overture, while three,—who
were doubtful of his good faith,—were opposed to it.
In the following year, this agreement was renewed, on
condition that Keller would consent to the examination of
his store accounts at short notice.
By the autumn of 1835, the former attitude of suspicion
must have returned, for again every student who was
known to have visited the premises, was reported and
punished; and an attempt was also made to prevent the
issuance of a new license to the proprietor. His old
license apparently was not revoked, but his trade with the
young men was so much hampered at this shadowed place
of business, that he leased the Midway Hotel, and retired
from the immediate vicinity of the University. But, if
possible, this hostelry, under his management, became
more objectionable to the University authorities than the
shop had been. It was popularly known as Keller's tavern.
Students patronized it throughout the day and
night, and the drinking was unrestrained in spite of the
fact that every collegian seen there was reported to the
Faculty. It was said to have been less difficult to detect
them in the hotel than in the confectionery. The discreditable
use so often made of the place was illustrated
in an instance that occurred there in 1837, and which involved
a student, who, in after life, won a position of
national distinction. A combination was formed by several
of his friends to make him drunk, and they set out
with him for Keller's. There the former absorbed, with
the utmost liberality, weak claret punch and whisky
punch, while the victim was confined to raw whisky.
The party were able to return to their dormitories,—
probably with the assistance of a town hack,—and on
their arrival, one of its members, while flourishing a pistol,
accidentally shot another, but happily not fatally. It
was stated in the inquiry which followed that the young
men from the University never visited Charlottesville
without carrying arms in order to defend themselves
against the assaults of a class designated by them as
"mechanics." There was a patrol on the streets at this
time at night, perhaps for the purpose of watching the
slaves who had slunk abroad; and these men were chronically
in collision with the students.
In 1837, Keller, having become a bankrupt, expressed
an intention of returning to his original trade of baker.
We have seen that, during the existence of his covenant
with the Faculty, his accounts were open to their examination
at any time. This was to prevent the extension of
credit to the young men, especially for the purchase of
stimulants. An ordinance, adopted in 1837, prohibited
the patron from paying any bill drawn on him by a
student in favor of a tradesman whom he had reason to
know or believe "to be a retailer of vinous, spirituous, or
fermented liquors." This ordinance had a rather notable
consequence. It appears from the statement of
Colonel Woodley, the proctor, that, in 1838, there were
several important merchants in Charlottesville whose
business would have been sensibly contracted by it, and
they were so much irritated by its passage that they joined
in an underhanded agreement with the students, by the
terms of which the latter were to make the greater number
of their necessary purchases before they should
matriculate, and the merchants, by a discount, were to
recoup their youthful patrons for the two per cent. additional
commission, which they, in case the bargains were
detected, would be required by the regulations to pay
the patron. This furtive stipulation led many of the
young men to place in these tradesmen's hands all the
money remaining in their possession after their settlement
for tuition fees. The deposits with the patron, in
1838, owing to this cause, fell off one-half of the average
amount, resulting in a loss to him of three or four
hundred dollars.
So anxious were the Faculty to take away from the
students all excuse for visiting Charlottesville, that, in
1833, they gave a free mulatto, Jack Kennedy, permission
to use a cellar within the precincts as a barber shop;
but this primitive apartment was not to be kept open after
dark.
The determined effort to discourage drinking habits
among the young men was not confined to the strict
enforcement of formal ordinances. As early as June,
1830, a temperance society had been organized at the
University, but with the odd provision that the members
should be allowed to retain the right to drink wine. In
the following October, not long after the beginning of a
new session, the students met in the Rotunda, and reestablished
the society, with the Faculty's full consent. In
April, 1832, seventy members were enrolled. For the
time being, its influence was very perceptible. "The
drunkenness and yells by which our peace used to be
disturbed, night after night," said the chairman, "are
no longer heard." Cocke, as was to be expected of a
man who favored universal prohibition, took a burning
interest in the society, and presented it, through Alexander
Garrett, with many bulky packages of pertinent documents.
But they seem to have had little influence, for,
by the session of 1835, the organization had begun to
languish. Colonel Pendleton, the proctor at this time,—
who, like Colonel Woodley afterwards, was probably
without sympathy with the movement,—was frankly
discouraging in his reports to Cocke. He very correctly
said that the cause of temperance at the University was
one hedged about with all sorts of thorny difficulties, and
that only the rarest practical wisdom and patience shown
there could crown it with success. The methods to be
adopted with that view were left by him in the
dark, except that he advised that some famous advocate
of total abstinence should be invited to deliver an address
to the students. A meeting among themselves,—
as warmly urged by Cocke,—would, in his opinion, only
barb and reenergize the opposition. Professor Davis's
report was couched in words in harmony with Pendleton's.
"Young men," he said, "accustomed to indulge in the
use of ardent spirits at home, and to see them used in
their families, as most of our students unfortunately are,
can hardly be expected to entertain proper views on the
subject."
William Wertenbaker, who, after giving up his hotel,
became such a stout and fanatical friend of the Cause,
that, in his letters to Cocke, he always signed himself,
"In the bonds of temperance brotherhood," was compelled,
in 1841, to write in the same disheartened vein:
"I have but little hope," he said, "of seeing the professors
engage in temperance with anything like unanimity.
There are perhaps two who agree with us in principle;
namely, Professors Howard and Rogers; and others
may be influenced to unite in the usual pledge of abstinence
from intoxicants, under the persuasion that their
example might influence many students to do the same.
The professors friendly to the Cause, do not wish to appear
to take the lead, but are waiting the action of some
of the students, who have promised that, in a few weeks,
they will make an effort to organize a society. ...
Several of the students have united themselves with a
temperance society formed in Charlottesville." Cocke
firmly refused to give away to depression. "I shall
never cease," he said, "while my connection with this
University lasts, to urge upon the Faculty, and all connected
with it, the vast importance of bringing the temperance
reform to operate on the students."
