« ForrigeFortsett »
Senator REED. Call your next witness, please.
Bishop HAMMAKER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I happen to represent a group of more than 8,000,000 churchmen. But I am now going to call upon a man who, as associate general secretary, represents a far greater group of Christians, the associate general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the largest organized group of Christian citizens of this country.
I want to present Rev. Dr. Roswell P. Barnes.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROSWELL P. BARNES, ASSOCIATE GENERAL
SECRETARY, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.
Dr. Barnes. I am Roswell P. Barnes, 297 Fourth Avenue, New York 10, N. Y.
Mr. Chairman, I appear as the associate general secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, to report the position of the council with reference to the question of liquor advertising.
The official position of the council is set forth in a statement adopted at its biennial meeting in Seattle, in December 1946. It is not a position adopted with special reference to S. 265, which has not been considered by the council. It does, however, set forth certain principles which it believes to be generally held by the overwhelming majority of its constituency, which is comprised of 25 national denominations with a combined membership of some 27,000,000 persons. The statement is one of a series on operating principles for social control and reads as follows:
Regulation of advertising of alcoholic bercruges.--We deplore the effect which the advertising of alcoholic beverages is destined to have, especially upon the mind of youth, through its unwarranted and false claims, which go beyond public presentation of brand names, common to all advertising, and which aim to invest the use of alcohol with prestige and desirability. This calls for regulatory practices which, if not voluntarily put into effect by advertising agents, should be imposed by appropriate organs of government.
It was definitely recognized by the council that such measures as the control of liquor advertising are not final steps but that they can be of assistance in dealing with the social problems of alcohol at the level of public policy.
The council does not presume any special competence with regard to the most effective and appropriate legislative measures for dealing with this matter. I would, therefore, disclaim both authorization and competence to discuss technical details with regard to the provisions of this bill. This council does recognize, however, a responsibility for pointing out the moral implications of the prevailing practices of liquor advertising and their consequences in the lives of our people. The council regards it, therefore, appropriate to press upon legislators their responsibility for devising effective and appropriate means of control.
It should be observed that our present practices constitute an embarrassment to our Canadian neighbors to the north. I recently received from an official of the United Church of Canada a clipping of the book cover of a well-known periodical, published in the United
States, which is widely circulated in Canada and which was a fullpage display of advertising of a blended Canadian whisky over the name of a New York firm. My correspondent says:
Continuance of high-pressure, highly colored American advertising of beverage alcohol threatens the Canadian policy of restricting such advertising. It is argued that Ontario magazines, for example, are unable to compete on even terms with American magazines, as long as the latter continue to receive liquor advertising revenues.
He goes on to observe that American beverage alcohol advertising is one of the American free enterprise products that does not add to the good standing of the free enterprise system.
It should be noted that the quoted action of the Federal Council does not take exception of the “presentation of brand names," though this does not imply that the council approves the trade in alcoholic beverages. The aspect of beverage liquor advertising which is reyarded as most objectionable is its investing of the use of alcohol with prestige and desirability.
Undoubtedly, advertising does have an influence on the mores of the people. It does more than reflect current practicesmit tends to influence them in one direction or another.
For example, it was not so long ago that the pictures used in liquor advertising generally included men only. Today, however, women are very frequently pictured. Thus, there is a tendency to establish the social propriety of women drinking as well as men, both on social occasions and in public.
Our action makes special reference to the influence of much advertising upon the mind of youth. Youth is led to believe by the insinuations of advertising that the drinking of alcoholic beverages is a mark of social acceptability if not, indeed, of social distinction.
Obviously, the purpose of liquor advertising is to stimulate increased consumption of alcoholic beverage beyond that which would prevail if normal consumption were not thus stimulated. Otherwise there would be no business justification from the point of view of the advertiser for the expenditure of such huge sums of money.
The council recognizes that ultimately the solution of the problems of alcohol is a matter of education and of moral discipline. It does not for a moment assume that the churches are fulfilling their responsibility merely by advocating such measures of social control as are involved in the control of liquor advertising. It is assumed, however, that it is reasonable to expect that public policy requires that the instruments of public communication should not run counter to the efforts of public educational institutions, the churches, and other agencies which are trying to deal with this problem at the deeper levels.
Therefore, we would urge upon Congress such measures as it may consider to be effective and appropriate for the control of liquor advertising.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bishop HAMMAKER. Mr. Chairman, with your concurrence, and I think you have indicated that you did concur, the committee would like to present Dr. Sam Morris, for a 30-minute presentation.
Senator REED. You may proceed, Mr. Morris.
STATEMENT OF REV. SAM MORRIS, SAN ANTONIO, TEX. Mr. MORRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Sam Morris from San Antonio, Tex., associate editor of America's oldest prohibition newspaper, the National Voice.
I am the representative of several million radio listeners throughout the United States who, by petitions, telegrams, and letters, to the number of some 20,000, have requested that I appear here before your committee in support of Senate bill 265.
The people who advocate the unrestricted advertising of beverage alcohol over the radio, in newspapers and magazines, justify their position by the claim that since the passing of the Eighteenth amendment, this is a legal product and therefore is entitled to all of the privileges of other legitimate products being advertised through the various media.
They fail to take into account the facts in the case.
For example, the State of Kansas prohibits the sale of wine and whisky throughout the entire State. It is illegal to sell wine or whisky throughout the entire State of Oklahoma.
It is likewise illegal to sell wine or whisky throughout the State of Mississippi. In the State of Tennessee, only 9 of the 95 counties in the State permit the sale of wine or whisky. In the State of North Carolina, there are 75 of the 100 counties that prohibit the sale of wine and whisky.
In various other States, where local option prohibition directions are permitted by law, the people of those States have outlawed the sale not only of wine and whisky, but likewise of beer as well.
For example, in the State of Maine, in this map which I have here, the black represents territory that permits the legal sale of beer, and the white spots represent towns and townships where that sale has been voted as illegal.
Much of this black territory is unorganized, in the State of Maine, and really would represent dry territory except that they have not voted in local option.
We will turn these maps aside for the benefit of the interested press.
In the State of Vermont, the black represents territory where the sale of beer and wine and liquor is legal. The white spots represent localities where the people, in local option, democratic elections, have voted back the prohibition and made illegal the sale of all liquor, wine, and beer.
In the State of Pennsylvania, some 650 towns, townships, and precincts, represented by the white spots on this map, have voted back to prohibition, and voted to prohibit the legal sale of all beverage alcohol.
In the State of Ohio, under township and city and precinct local option elections, the people have voted back to total prohibition in some 450 towns, townships, and precincts.
Likewise in the State of Wisconsin, as represented by the white spots on this map, we have some 350 towns and townships where beer or wine, or both, cannot be legally purchased.
And in the State of Illinois, we have over a thousand precincts, towns, townships, and districts that have voted back the prohibition outlawing the sale of beer, wine, and whisky. A combined population of nearly 2,000,000 live in those white areas in the State of Illinois.
Now, those are States that do not permit county-wide option-only towns, townships, and precincts.
Then we go into other States, where they are permitted to vote in county-wide option. And before me I hold the map of the State of Kentucky. Seventy-three legal distillers and six legal breweries operate full blast in the State of Kentucky. And yet today, in the State of Kentucky, the people have voted back to prohibition in 92 entire counties, 161 precincts in 14 other counties.
Then we come to the State of Georgia. The State of Georgia has 67 entire counties that have voted out the sale of beer, wine, and whisky.
Next is the State of Alabama, which joins Georgia. Forty-seven entire counties in the State of Alabama do not permit the legal sale of beer, wine, or whisky, and only 20 counties in the entire State permit the sale of beer, wine, or whisky.
The State of Mississippi, unlike your State of Kansas, which permits the sale of 3.2 beer in the entire State, and the State of Oklahoma, which likewise permits the sale of 3.2 beer in the entire State, does not permit the legal sale of hard liquor or wine anywhere, and they have local option on beer, and 52 of the 82 counties have voted out the sale of beer.
Then we come to the State of Louisiana. There are 16 whole parishes, which correspond to counties in the other States, that have voted out the sale of all beer, wine, and whisky.
In the State of Arkansas, there are now some 37 or 38 counties, represented by the white in this map, that have voted out the sale of all beer, wine, and whisky.
And then, in my own State of Texas—the large State down in the corner of the Nation—there are in Texas 139 entire counties that do not permit the sale of either beer, wine, or whisky in any part of the State, and many of the other counties have outlawed the sale of wine and beer.
Now, then, here is the proposition that confronts us concerning the advertisement of beverage alcohol: In these vast areas, where millions of people live who, by their own vote, in local option, have decided that this product shall not be sold, we find newspapers, magazines, movies on the screen, radio programs coming in, day by day and night by night, at choice hours, advocating the sale of a product that is definitely against the law to sell.
So our proponents of liquor advertising who say it is a legal product and should be classified along with other products fail to take into account this vast area of dry territory.
They sometimes say that advertising of beverage alcohol is intended only to protect the trade name.
I was riding in my Ford car across Kentucky and tuned in a radio station last spring about this time, soon after the Government put on its restriction against the use of wheat and grains in the production of beer. And I tuned in radio station KMOX of St. Louis, owned and operated by the Columbia Broadcasting System. Imagine my great surprise when I heard
heard the following anouncement:
The cut in beer production has brought about many unforeseen consequences. First of all your dealer has less beer when he wants it. Further, less funds nor
mally provided by beer taxes are at the disposal of worth-while, tax-supported institutions. Less of that valuable high protein byproduct by brewing used by farmers in stock raising is available. Less employment follows.
At first it was thought this would save wheat, but, as we know today, no wheat, none at all, is used in the making of beer. However, as long as the curtailment continues, your hard-pressed dealer may have to say again and again, "Sorry, no beer today. No beer today. Try again tomorrow."
On Monday night, June 24, we heard this over the same station. I recorded these programs and have them on record :
If your dealer says, "Sorry, no beer," please don't feel that he is holding out on you. Remember that there has been a drastic cut in all beer production. Originally, it was thought this would be a way to save wheat, but, as everybody knows, today no wheat is used in the making of beer. And, so, besides your hard-pressed dealer who has less beer when you want it, the Government gets less of those taxes beer pays for the country's benefit, working people have fewer jobs, the farmer gets less of beer's wonderful high-protein products for stock and poultry raising. While present conditions prevail your dealer can only ask you to bear with him, And remember, no wheat is used, no wheat is needed, in the production of beer.
Now, that was made despite the fact that in September 1945 they used 6,234,777 pounds of wheat; October, 6,462,598 pounds; and in November, December, and January they ran the total up to 27,937,798 pounds of wheat.
Now, that is not protecting a trade name. That was likewise heard over WWL of New Orleans, and thus was heard over two big 50,000watt stations that blanket the Midwest. That was plain everyday brewery propaganda, against the Government policy of restricting them from using wheat in the production of beer in order that we might save the starving millions of the earth.
Now, that is not the worst part of this, gentlemen of the committee. I am turning my attention now particularly to radio, because that is a field in which I operate.
The National Broadcasting Co. sells a half-hour beer-sponsored program across the Nation every week. The Columbia Broadcasting
. System for 3 years, sold 4 half-hour broadcasts at choice night hours, , 2 to beer and 2 to wine. They still continue two half-hours each week on wine.
The Mutual Broadcasting System sells a regularly scheduled and advertised network coast-to-coast broadcast of wine.
The American Broadcasting Co. sold $33,000 worth of time last year for the advertisement of beer.
And in each of these four national networks, despite the fact that they make their facilities available on a commercial basis for the advertisement for this brewery propaganda, this prodrinking appealneither of these four networks will sell the abstinence or prohibition forces time for a regularly scheduled advertised program, presenting the claims of abstinence and prohibition. Not only is that the policy of the great networks, but it is the policy of many individual stations; as, for example, WBAL over here at Baltimore, 50,000 watts; WWVA in Wheeling, W. Va., 50,000 watts; WLW in Cincinnati, 50,000 watts clear-channel station; WCKY in Cincinnati, a 50,000-watt clear-channel station; KMOX in St. Louis, a 50,000 station WCAU in Philadelphia; WBBM in Chicago; WGN of Chicago; WMAQ of Chicago; WENR of Chicago; WJJD of Chicago; KVOO of Tulsa; WRLD of Dallas; WWL of New Orleans; and KOA in Denver.