Formed in 1917 as the women’s suffrage movement gained momentum across the United States, the Princeton Woman’s Club proved its mettle over the years by taking the lead in several efforts that fit the organization’s founding mission: “the intellectual improvement of its members and betterment of the community.”
The club’s list of accomplishments included playing a key role in improvements at the City Cemetery, City Park and Community Hall in the 1920s, establishing the public library in 1933 and a Girl Scout troop in 1935, contributing to the war effort on the home front in the 1940s, and sponsoring an anti-polio campaign and youth center in the early 1950s.
Its most controversial campaign had been an unsuccessful push in 1931 to establish a kindergarten. The battle went all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The club stirred the progressive pot again two decades later when it launched a debate in Princeton about fluoridation. The battle went all the way to … the Princeton City Council.
Fluoridation history
Fluoridation research in the U.S. began in the 1930s. It intensified when reports revealed that easily 15-20 percent of World War II inductees did not meet the military’s dental requirements for service – three pairs of opposing front teeth and three pairs of opposing back teeth.
The Wisconsin State Dental Society formed a committee to study fluorine in 1944 and in 1945 went on record favoring fluoridation to combat tooth decay in children.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first U.S. city to add fluoride to its water in 1945 when it started a 10-year trial in partnership with the U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Surgeon General, Michigan Department of Health, and the University of Michigan School of Dentistry.
The Wisconsin Board of Health, meanwhile, was conducting surveys comparing dental health in communities with fluoride naturally present in their water supplies, such as Green Bay, with communities with little or no fluoride in their drinking water, such as Sheboyan. The results in 1946 showed that Green Bay children had one-third as many cavities as the Sheboygan kids.
Sheboygan became the first city in Wisconsin to fluoridate its water in 1946.
President Harry Truman in June 1948 signed an act creating the National Institute of Dental Research. The institute quickly added its support to the Grand Rapids fluoridation project, which had expanded to six cities with similar results.
Madison began fluoridation in 1948. Antigo, Rhinelander and others followed suit in 1949. By the end of the decade twelve Wisconsin cities were adding fluoride to their drinking water and 38 were installing equipment.
Fond du Lac began fluoridation in 1950, five years into the Grand Rapids experiment. By the time the debate reached Princeton in 1952, 83 Wisconsin cities were adding fluoride to their drinking water and 38 other communities had OK’d similar projects.
The local debate
Dr. Francis Bull, director of the dental division of the State Board of Health, spoke to a group of Princeton’s community leaders about fluoridation in September 1952.
“It was one of the most interesting and informative discussions the writer has ever attended,” reported Phil Norman, Princeton Times-Republic publisher and editor.
Bull told the group that fluoridation could reduce tooth decay in children by two-thirds, would cost about $650 to implement, or about nine cents per person per year, and had no ill side effects when consumed at the recommended one part fluoride to one million parts of water.
“Today the public is acquainted with many of the facts of fluoridation and likewise with many of the ‘boogey-man’ aspects of this health measure,” Norman noted. “… Many who oppose fluoridation insist that it is a poison, that it will make the water taste, that it will add an odor or have other objectionable features. Of course, it is a poison. So is arsenic, but in the same dosage of one part per million water you could drink it for 70 years and still die with your boots on. As for taste, a good comparison would be a saltwater gargle. If you took one drop out of a saltwater gargle and added to a million drops of our city water, you couldn’t possibly taste it, and if you could I’d buy you the best hat in town.”
Bull suggested the money parents saved on dental bills would pay for the original cost in one year, while the benefits would increase each year.
“We are very much in favor of an ordinance which will ensure this health protection for our children,” Norman wrote. “It is one of the few things we can do today for our children where costs are relatively unimportant.”
No one on the council followed Norman’s call for a fluoridation ordinance, and the editor soon found an anti-fluorides pamphlet on his desk.
“The man who operates this so-called Americanism Bulletin has no standing in the dental or medical world,” Norman wrote in an editorial in November 1952. “He calls himself a world traveler and news analyst. A better description would be opportunist. … There are others also of the same type who are always willing to enter into a controversial issue of medical or scientific content, who have no training for drawing conclusions for the benefit of anyone but themselves.”
Local dentist Joe Drill also shared reprints from the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, based in Milwaukee. The founder, Dr. Royall Lee, was a classmate of Drill at Marquette University’s School of Dentistry.
Lee “evidently has strayed considerably from the field of dentistry into what might be appropriately called food-fadism,” Norman noted. “Dr. Lee is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs, but at the same time he is interested in promoting his vitamin products company. It is hard to determine from his writings which comes first, his desire to promote his vitamins or to give an unbiased report on the public health benefits of fluoridation.”
The “scare literature” that circulated in Wisconsin communities debating fluoride were often decorated with skull and crossbones and emphasized fluorine compounds could be poisonous.
“Naturally they neglect mentioning that many life-saving and health-giving compounds can also be poisonous if used to excess,” the Milwaukee Journal noted.
The Princeton Woman’s Club formed a committee to study fluoridation as a possible community project in 1954, several months before Montello voters rejected a fluoridation referendum, 275-190, in November.
Mrs. Hilbert Krueger, who joined the club in 1951, volunteered to lead the project. She had served the local club as treasurer and membership chairman and the county federation as treasurer for two years. She also served two years as co-chairman of the Mothers March on Polio sponsored by the club and sang in the club chorus.
Lucille (Ahrens) Krueger was a 1938 PHS graduate who attended Oshkosh Business College after high school and worked briefly as a legal secretary at an Oshkosh firm before accepting a job as assistant cashier at the Farmers-Merchants National Bank in Princeton. She married Hilbert Krueger in 1948. He was a bookkeeper and office manager for the Giese Lumber Yard. They had two young children, Ann and Tom, when the local fluoridation debate began.
Krueger did extensive research on fluoridation, contacted reputable sources, and studied all the pro-and-con literature she could gather. She attended a meeting where Bull spoke with Montello residents prior to their referendum. She circulated a movie endorsing the benefits of fluoridation among local civic clubs and schools, individually visiting each upper grades’ classroom, and the committee created a pamphlet highlighting both sides of the issue.
The campaign convinced Sandra Walters, editor of the High Times school newspaper.
“I think it is something that should not be overlooked,” Walters opined in April 1954. “It is too important to the health of our children and their teeth. I believe it would be a good thing for our community. So, fellow citizens, think of us – your children! The fluoridation of water will greatly affect our lives, for in future years our children’s teeth will be protected from excessive decay – if you act now. Why delay? Stop decay!”
Shirley Sauter, High Times features editor in 1955-56, shared her opinion as well: “Much of the negative literature circulated is put out by people who have no professional background and no scientific proof for their statements. Let us remind you that these people were the same type of people who opposed pasteurization and vaccinations. What would we do now without these two things? We cannot deny the good which vaccinations and pasteurization have done for us. … So, may we make a plea to the people of Princeton to take this step forward? Think of us, your children!”
Krueger and her committee prepared a series of articles about fluoridation for the Times-Republic. The first one appeared on the back page, with the classifieds advertising, in October 1954.
“There is something that can be done to give your child much better teeth – and that something is the fluoridation of our water supply,” the club stated. “… Fluoridation of water is simply this: a chemical, fluoride, is added to our water supply. This chemical absorbs into the enamel of the teeth while the teeth are being formed in infancy and early childhood and gives them more resistance to decay. … The fluoridation of water has been approved by every reputable research group in the country.”
Fellow civic groups joined the Woman’s Club campaign as Krueger organized a 17-member citizens committee in August 1955 to help inform people about fluoridation.
Krueger enlisted the help of local dentists Joe Drill, Sam Garro and Alfred Giese Sr., city health officer Dr. G.G. Mueller, and county nurse Rosemary Vahldieck to assure residents that fluoridation was safe and effective.
The citizens fluoridation committee, chaired by Krueger, also included representatives of the Woman’s Club, Lions Club, Rotary Club, Progressive Club, Homemakers Club, Welfare Aid Society of the E.U.B. church, Catholic Council of Women, Catholic Order of Foresters, American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary.
“We, the citizens committee, are not trying to push fluoridation onto the people of Princeton,” the committee related in its opening statement. “As a group we feel that it would be a most important health measure for your children, and we would like to present the facts via this newspaper so that all may be informed. You, the residents of Princeton, may make up your own mind about this matter. If you, for personal reasons, are opposed to fluoridation, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. If, however, you have not had the opportunity to find out much about it or feel that it would be harmful in any way, you owe it to yourselves to become better informed.”
Subsequent articles dealt with how fluoridation affects tooth decay, safety concerns, costs and other topics. Krueger also answered questions in person and those sent by mail. Berlin and Ripon were among the communities adding fluoride, she noted.
Krueger talked to health and government officials from cities with fluoridation and cities that removed it, and she worked with an engineering firm to develop blueprints for Princeton’s system and provide a cost estimate.
The newspaper also ran an article submitted by the Wisconsin Board of Health in November 1955: “Wisconsin is proud to be among the leaders in this movement for better health. Ninety-seven communities in our state with a total population of over 1,500,000 people are adding fluorides in controlled amounts in their water supply. This represents 75 percent of the people living in areas of Wisconsin served by public water supplies. … The longer we adults procrastinate, the longer our children will be denied the benefits of better teeth.”
Results of dental surveys conducted in grades 1, 4, 8 and 11 at the three Princeton schools as part of a statewide study released in December 1955 showed higher numbers of bad teeth (decayed, filled, missing or extracted) here than counterparts in areas with fluorine in the water.
“There is a high level of good dentistry being done in Princeton,” said Belle Fiedler, dental hygienist with state health department. “Parents are doing a good job of seeing that their children get to the dentist. Seventy-five percent of the children are having their dental work done. But, considering the amount of dental work these children need, the emphasis must now be put on preventive measures – fluoridation, better oral hygiene, better food habits.”
The newspaper found little support for fluoridation when it interviewed Princeton’s aldermen in December 1955.
“Elmer Mueller said that he would like to learn more about fluoridation before deciding definitely,” the Times-Republic reported. “He does not believe that the cost would be an important factor if the benefits are great enough.”
“Stanley Kozlowski, third ward, states that he is not for fluoridation,” the newspaper noted. “He said that he understands several communities that have fluoridation are now doing away with it, so there must be some reason.”
Pete Siekierka also opposed fluoridation. He said the costs would be higher than claimed, he was unclear whether it would affect older people, and thought fluoridation might spoil the city’s good artesian water. He suggested people who wanted them could get fluoridated tablets.
Norbert Notwatski and A.A. Sommerfeldt declined to comment, and the newspaper could not contact Jerome Marshall.
Robert Francis, who purchased the Times-Republic from Norman in December 1954, was not as enthusiastic about fluoridation as his predecessor. “We feel duty bound to support the measure providing a majority of the citizens want fluoridation,” was the best endorsement Francis could muster in a rare editorial on the controversial issue.
The Committee on Fluoridation responded in the January 12, 1956, edition of the Times-Republic. Noting that the council members had been given literature opposed to fluoridation, the committee urged residents to question the knowledge and credentials of the authors to see if they are accredited scientists or health professionals, check whether they offer any proof to support their claims, and see if both sides of the issue are fairly represented.
“It is extremely important that we consider each of the above questions, because if we do, we will not believe everything we hear or read,” the committee stated. “In the first place, the claims that fluoridation is harmful are absolutely not true, according to medical authorities. Fluoridation is absolutely harmless to everyone young or old, and that fact has been proved time and again.”
Krueger and the citizens committee invited the council members and City Clerk Clarence Oelke to a meeting in late January to hear the “pro” side of fluoridation.
Dr. Mueller told the officials fluoridation would be “the best thing that could possibly be done for the community,” according to the Times-Republic. Drill said he enthusiastically supported the proposal and pointed out Sheboygan had no record of illnesses or deaths in its ten years of fluoridation, and Garro said there is no doubt fluoridation reduces tooth decay.
Krueger thanked the city officials for their attention and asked them to be fair to the people they represent by reading both sides of the issue.
“You are the elected leaders of the people and as such it is your responsibility to do what is best for the city,” she told them.
The Rotary Club passed a resolution urging the council to act on fluoridation as soon as possible, and it appeared it would do that at its February meeting.
“Every chair in the City Hall was filled Tuesday evening when the City Council held its regular meeting,” the Times-Republic reported on February 9, 1956“The reasons for the all the interest were the resolutions and petitions presented urging the City Council to provide fluoridation of the municipal water supply at the earliest date.”
Krueger presented petitions bearing signatures of 352 Princeton voters who supported fluoridation, and Oelke read supporting resolutions from eight local organizations.
Only one person out of the over 60 people at the meeting spoke against fluoridation.
“The crowd applauded Alderman Norbert Nowatski when he spoke in favor of getting the situation over soon and settling the question one way or the other by referendum,” the newspaper reported. “He said too much talk and ill feeling was resulting.”
Alderman Mueller said the council was reluctant to act on fluoridation without a referendum because in a few months they likely would be petitioned to remove the fluoride. Krueger explained that’s why the club and committee spent two years studying the issue and the last year publicizing information about fluoridation.
“In nearly every city where it was removed, she said, fluoridation was originally passed by the council on the advice of the health department or other persons without a referendum vote,” the newspaper reported. “Because the matter had not been discussed in those cities, the people became fearful when ‘scare’ literature was distributed at a later date. Here in Princeton everyone has heard the pros and cons.”
Alderman A.A. Sommerfeldt, who had not attended the committee’s informational meeting with the city officials, moved to table the question, which brought a chorus of complaints from the audience about how long it would be tabled.
Mayor George Hamann responded by naming Nowatski, Mueller and Kozlowski to a committee, which was instructed to report its findings at the March council meeting.
The newspaper praised the decision: “The problem of fluoridation appeared to be very well handled by our city council Tuesday night. … The action taken by the council was probably the soundest method of approach to the important subject. Our council proved themselves worthy when they formed a committee to study the situation until their March meeting.”
When the mayor asked for the committee’s report in March, it had none. Instead, Sommerfeldt made a motion to drop the fluoridation discussion. Siekierka provided the second. Kozlowski, Mueller, and Marshall agreed. Nowatski abstained.
Fluoridation proponents lobbied for the issue to be put on the April ballot but were informed it was too late.
With less than a month until the election, write-in candidates challenged the three aldermen on the April ballot. Mueller, Kozlowski and Siekierka all kept their council seats as 725 voters went to the polls.
The fluoridation debate ended there. Neither the Woman’s Club nor the citizens committee pushed for a binding referendum.
The fluoridation story did not end there, however.
‘The Princeton Story’
The Princeton Woman’s Club entered the work of Krueger and her committee in a statewide Community Achievement contest sponsored by the General Federation of Women’s Clubs and the Sears-Roebuck Foundation. It won first place and $300!
The winners were announced at the state GVWC convention in Rhinelander in June 1956. President Alice Krystofiak and Krueger represented the 81-member Princeton club.
“Mrs. Krystofiak, retiring Princeton president who was to accept the check for the local club, asked that the honor be given to Mrs. Krueger, originator of the idea, who deserves a lot of credit and is a pride to her club, she said,” the newspaper reported.
For the first time in its history, the Princeton Woman’s Club nominated one of its members for the state organization’s most prestigious honor, the Theodora Youmans Citizenship Award.
“Mrs. Hilbert Krueger was chosen as a candidate for the Theodora Youmans Award and honored at a Lucille Krueger Day by the Princeton Woman’s Club for her outstanding work, untiring efforts and sincerity in promoting the fluoridation of the municipal water supply in Princeton to reduce tooth decay in children,” the Times-Republic reported in August. “She had the courage, despite opposition, to lead a campaign openly and vigorously for fluoridation. … All through the campaign she remained calm and collected, never used forceful tactics and never condemned the opponents.”
Krueger did not win the state award but took the stage one final time in October 1956 to reflect on Princeton’s fluoridation campaign.
“The Princeton Story” became the title of a University of Wisconsin Short Course conducted in Madison for professional community leaders from across the state. The program featured presentations by Krueger, the city clerk, the county nurse, and Oliver Deffenbaugh, managing editor of the Times-Republic.
After Krueger provided the background of the club’s efforts, Oelke defended the council’s action but praised Krueger for her “untiring workmanship” and effort to discuss all sides of the issue.
“Mr. Oelke said that like all humans, Princeton council is no different and can sometimes make mistakes, but that he felt the members of the council acted on the matter of fluoridation in the manner in which they thought best suited the citizens at that time,” the Times-Republic reported. “The Princeton council, like all governing bodies in a democracy such as ours, acted in the best interest of the city.”
Vahldiek disagreed with several Oelke comments and cited the statistics that showed the need for fluoridation.
Deffenbaugh, who joined the newspaper after Francis purchased it from Norman, said the cost of fluoridation, though relatively low, was a factor in the council’s decision.
“A very high percentage of Princeton citizens are retired or are semi-retired, he said, and what little savings they have they are trying to hold on to,” the newspaper reported. “So, when you start talking about spending money for something that may or may not in their eyes improve the health condition of the citizens of Princeton, they watch very closely the tax increase effect that it might have on them.”
He suggested the committee should have included city officials when it organized and that older people were not well educated on the subject.
Although the issue divided the community when the debate was at its peak, Deffenbaugh said he saw no lingering hard feelings in the weeks following the council’s decision.
“He ended his comments by saying both the fluoridation committee and the City Council should be highly commended for their hard work during this time when the fluoridation campaign was as explosive as an atomic bomb,” the newspaper said.
The issue was gone but not forgotten.
Nearly ten years after the City Council’s decision, another publisher and editor, James Wolff, who purchased the Times-Republic in 1959 and operated as the Princeton Publishing Company Inc., suggested it was time for Princeton to reconsider fluoridation.
“During the past several months there have been a great many articles in the papers concerning the issue of fluoridation in communities throughout the state,” Wolff wrote in April 1965. “… It has always amazed and annoyed us how a band of people can get together and convince a whole community, without any statistics or proof to back them up, that fluoridation is bad. Especially in view of the fact that so much overwhelming evidence has been compiled proving that it is effective in eliminating tooth decay without any ill effects and absolutely no taste detected in the water. …
“Are we still so backward in our thinking that we’ll believe those who attach all sorts of evils to fluoridation and vote it down without investigating any statistics or accepting the word of health departments throughout the nation? It is a stupid and tragic consequence when we see fights waged in communities to keep them from accepting such a worthwhile health measure, particularly for our children, when it’s there just for the asking! We understand that a group of Princeton residents tried to raise the issue here a few years back, but didn’t get far enough. Now, we would like to see our City Council take the initiative and bring it up for passage soon.”
Just as the earlier council did in 1952 when Phil Norman called for a fluoridation ordinance, the Princeton City Council ignored Wolff’s suggestion in 1965.
Lucille Krueger, who continued to be involved in the Woman’s Cub and community projects following the fluoridation campaign, passed away in 1998 at age 77.
Fluoridation remains a contentious issue across the U.S. in 2025. The DeForest, Wisconsin, council voted 4-3 in March to halt its fluoridation program, prompting the cartoon below.
Thank you for reading and caring about local history.
Please let me know if you spot any errors.