Now, if one impression can have that effect upon a Jewish boy who is so steeped in the traditions of his fathers as to cause him to throw them all to the winds, I wonder to what extent one impression only, and not the 371/2 billions that I have referred to that come in over the air through the $100,000,000 spent annually by the liquor interests—I wonder what one impression is likely to do in the way of damage and injury and tragedy to the boys and girls that hear it.

And that is the thing that is motivating those who will testify today.

Then the question arises, “What is liquor's status in society today?"

I am now speaking a little bit from the legal standpoint, as I am attorney for the committee. It is not necessary for me to go into all the books of jurisprudence, or those of lesser authority, but merely to make one or two quotations from the Supreme Court of the United States, that has already adjudicated, time and time again, the status of liquor, intoxicating liquor, in this land.

The Supreme Court said, "It is a business attended with danger to the community."

I have the citations here in my statement which will be filed.

The Supreme Court says that it is within the province of Congress to put restrictions on liquor on the ground of "safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community.”

Those six grounds are the grounds upon which we are here today asking for this remedial legislation.

Then I would like to read just 10 lines more, of what the Supreme Court had to say and has to say upon the matter of liquor. I am now quoting concerning the injury which attends the drinking of liquor.

This injury, it is true, first falls upon him in his health, which the habit undermines; in his morals, which it weakens; and in the self-debasement which it creates. But as it leads to neglect of business and waste of property and the general demoralization, it affects those who are immediately connected with and dependent upon him.

Listen to this, gentlemen of the committee, which the Supreme Court has said concerning liquor; just four lines:

By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram shop.

And it is, gentlemen of the committee, bounding from that springboard that our forces are here today. These are men who are not in any way motivated by making money in their appearance here and the position which they take.

After all, the position with respect to liquor of those who take positions with regard to it, can be divided from one standpoint into two classes: Those who are altruistically motivated, by desire to help their fellows, and then, those who are in the commercial liquor business, who are motivated principally for the purpose of making money.

Now, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I come from a great distilling State. There are 73 distilleries in the State of Kentucky, which make as much hard liquir as is made by the other 47 states in this Nation combined.

Yet, in spite of this, Kentucky is now leading the Nation in march for the extermination of alcoholic beverages.


Twenty-three hundred and sixty-three voting units out of the State's 4,044 are now dry, which is 65 percent. The dry units include 92 entirely dry counties out of a total of 120. Then, in the 14 wet counties, there are 161 voting units that have already outlawed alcoholic beverages, by vote of the people who live there, the mothers, the families, the heads of families in that community.

Sixty-four percent, or 1,810,647 people, now live in dry territory, Eighty-two percent of the State's 40,181 square miles is dry. And that, may it please the gentlemen of the committee, is in a State that is the leading distillery State in the union.

In other words, our people, loving their boys more than they love liquor, and the money that may come from the commercialized part of it, have solemnly, by their votes recorded in the local option law of the land and on the books of our State, recorded themselves as outlawing liquor. And I have many friends among the distillers of Kentucky, and even among the brewers. They do not think I am a fanatic. I think they respect me. I say that respectfully and somewhat modestly. They do not think I am a fanatic or a crackpot and they know where I stand. Because I have stood, as the president of the Sunday School Association, and as a lawyer, giving my legal talents to the banning of liquor.

One of their chief magazines said of me the other day:
Well, of all things, we can certainly say he is a sound lawyer.

Well, now, I would rather have him say I was an honest, square man, but that did not seem to have been questioned. And to have said that I was a sound lawyer, to my way of thinking was about the greatest compliment that could have been paid the professional skill of one who was a member of my profession.

These men talk frankly with me. One of them met met on the street the other day, and he said, “My little girls were out with your grandchildren the other at a party." And he seemed flattered with the fact that they were associating together.

And I was pleased, because I know them to be fine little folks, his folk as well as my children. Then he said this to me, "Mr. Johnson, you know I am in the liquor business, and I expect to make money as long as it is possible for me to make it. And I am going to make it until she goes out again."

"And," he said, "I don't know how soon that is around the corner, but I have stated here to your friend, and I am now stating to you, that, being in the business, I am one of those who say that liquor is not made to drink. Liquor is made to sell.”

Now, that man has divided our argument. Our forces here believe that liquor should not be drunk. We also believe that liquor should not be sold.

I passed by, of course, the Supreme Court cases. And then I want to say that as to the Constitution of the United States, when we came to enact our Twenty-first amendment, there are two sections of that amendment.

The first section of the amendment eliminates and abrogates the Eighteenth amendment. And then there is a second section of it that is not generally known by most people who consider this question. And I am now going to read that second section, a few lines of the amendment. This is the second section of the Twenty-first amendment.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

The purpose of this section is to recognize—and it was recognized by those who ratified it—the fact that in a very large portion of the United States, the sale, delivery and use of alcoholic liquors is prohibited by local option laws, and that in such areas, by constitutional enactment, some of these States will ban it.

By this provision it is recognized that the integrity of those sections that have outlawed liquor, should be preserved.

And then we ask the question:

If we have as large a percentage and proportion as I have indicated in my testimony that has already voted outlaw by local option, why is it that the liquor people should be permitted, by radio, which comes intimately into the home meets the mind of my boys and yours, and our grandchildren, and that also sends its glamorous appeals into the magazines and the newspapers, to continue their appeals?

Why is it that those people should, we will say, be allowed to practically come in Kentucky and flaunt the opinion already expressed in Kentucky against the will of the parents that are trying, under great handicaps and difficulties, to raise their boys and girls in sobriety?

So we said, "If you will go back to the twenty-first amendment itself, section 2, you will see that section 2 intended to guarantee the integrity of the will of the local communities that had already outlawed liquor."

Now, the question necessarily arises in this committee's mind: Many of you are lawyers; maybe all who are sitting on the committee and are hearing me may be lawyers. If not, you have to concern yourself with many of the provisions of the law. You ask yourself the question, "Well, wherein is there any precedent for Congress to reach out and to put the ban upon something that is harmful and hurtful?"

Now, we have a great bit of briefing and statements here and statements that will be made. But the other day I just picked up the United States Code, rather casually. I have it here. And I looked into the Department of Agriculture, the title on Agriculture, to see to what extent Congress had already, by legislation that is practically analogous to this, put the ban on things that were hurtful and harmful. And I find, for instance, that Congress has put the ban upon seeds of alfalfa, barley, Canadian blue grass, Kentucky blue grass, yes, even Kentucky blue grass, awnless brome grass, buckwheat, clover, field corn, kafir corn, meadow fescue, flax, millet, oats, orchard grass, rape, rye, sorghum, timothy, vetch, rye grass, and wheat, or mixtures of seeds containing any of such seeds as one of the principal component parts which are adultered or imfit for seeding purposes. Congress has also prohibitedThe introduction into any State or Territory or the District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia or from any foreign country, or shipinent to any foreign country, of any insecticide, or paris green, or lead arsenate, or fungicide which is adulterated or misbranded.

Then when it comes to the gypsy moth, the brown-tail moth, leopard moth, plum curculio, hop plant louse, boll weevil, or any other insect which is notorionsly injurious to cultivated crops, the Congress has, through its power to regulate commerce, both as to importation and interstate commerce, undertaken to provide protection against them.

Congress has enacted supporting legislation to the end, as Congress itself declares, that there may be aneradication, suppression, or bringing under control on national forests and other areas of the public domain as well as on State, Territory, or privately owned lands of mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, bobcats, prarie dogs, gophers, ground squirrels, jack rabbits, and other animals injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, wild game animals, fur-bearing animals, and birds, and for the protection of stock and other domestic animals through the suppression of rabies and tularemia in predatory or other wild animals, et cetera.

Now, I would like to say this: We, gentlemen of the committee, expect to introduce here, and you will have before you, evidence to the effect that the liquor interests, the commercialized liquor interests, years and years ago undertook to decide to make this Ñation “liquor conscious"; and for that purpose they made advertising the medium for their efforts, and I want to put those words "liquor conscious" between quotation marks, because those are the words that they themselves used.

We will file here numerous documents and quotations from liquor journals, in which they have stated that that is their purpose.

Let me read just five of their brazen and, I think, disgraceful statements, and slogans, more or less, that were set forth at one of their conventions. And we have the evidence here:

“Teach American women how to drink."
"Invite and welcome them to your bars and taprooms."

"Show young people how to enjoy the 'delightful wines of America.

“Train your publicity to catch the eye and develop the interest of the younger generation.' “Make youth liquor conscious

make it smart to drink wine.”

“We need to understand the habits of women and the younger generation."

Those were the placards and the signs that were placed in big display type in one of the conventions of the liquor people, held in the city of Chicago.

Now, I am a lawyer. Naturally, I wonder to what extent the liquor ads that so glamourize the drinker of liquor might be violating what I would consider to be the settled jurisprudence in this Nation concerning the duty of a man that has a product to sell.

They constantly say to us, “Liquor is a legitimate product to sell, and we have the right to sell it."

Well, they do not have the right to sell it everywhere. And where they do not have the right to sell it, they should not have the right to advertise it.

But let us assume that the liquor people have a commodity that is legal and that they also have a right to make statements concerning their products which would be an inducement to somebody to buy it; which they do, over the radio and in the press.


Here is a codification—and I can read it in perhaps two minutesof the law of this land, gathered from the jurisprudence throughout this nation, including that of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the law of sales. When a man has a commodity to sell, he has a right to make statements about it. But there are certain statements he cannot make under the law with impunity.

Under the law of vendors and purchasers, the law of sales, these are the rules drawn from that jurisprudence:

1. No vendor shall make statements recklessly. 2. He shall not make any false, misleading, or deceptive statements. 3. He shall not create any false or misleading impressions.

4. He shall not tell only a half truth, which, the law says, is the equivalent of concealing the other half.

5. No vendor shall fail to disclose any known or lurking danger in the use or misuse of the article offered.

By way of diverting for a moment, I might mention that in selling gunpowder, he must advise those who are listening to his sales argument for gunpowder, of the dangers that lurk in its use or its misuse.

6. He shall not remain silent when it is his duty to speak.

We say, gentlement of the committee, that if the liquor people are glamourizing liquor and wine and beer as they do, and we will have evidence of their advertisements here to let you form your own conclusions, they do not have any right to remain silent upon its use, when it is their duty to speak, as to what might result from its misuse.

7. He shall not suppress, or fail to state a fact which should be disclosed.

In other words, he shall not fail, when dealing with the inexperienced, such as youth, to reveal everything about the article, so as to put youth on a equal footing with the vendor.

Now, those are the things he shall not do.

Now, let us see some of the things, some of the positive things, that he shall do.

He shall communicate his superior knowledge about the article to those with less means of knowledge than himself.

Would my little Mark, or my little Lindie, my little grandchildren, or little Jackie, or Judy or the rest of them, know or be apprised of the dangers from what is contained in these advertisements?

No vendor shall suppress or conceal any fact within the vendor's knowledge which will materially qualify those facts which are stated.

Then, in addition to that, he must give warnings, and cautions as to any use which might be dangerous.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to conclude my remarks at this point, and let that be taken from the time the committee asked me to take, and merely say that there will appear before you today, we believe, the pick and the flower of American folk. We are not in any way high hatting anybody in America, but I say that the witnesses you will hear from today are motivated by a great consciousness of trying to do their duty, in order to see to it that the boys and girls of this next generation will be properly trained, properly educated, and properly environed.

They are the ones that are to carry on when we have passed off the


« ForrigeFortsett »