The two or three paragraphs that I would like to read are:

In December of 1933, President Roosevelt stated: “The policy of the Government will be to see to it that the social and political evils that have existed in the preprohibition era shall not be revived nor permitted again to exist. The objective we seek through a national policy is the education of every citizen toward a greater temperance throughout the Nation."

Millions of people were led to support the repeal of the prohibition amendment by just such assurances as this. Especially the promise was made that the saloon 'or anything like it would not be allowed to return, and that areas which voted dry would be protected against illegal importations and pressures from outside the dry area.

Then, skipping three or four paragraphs, Mr. Chairman, let me read the two brief closing paragraphs:

The advertising of liquor is aimed at spreading the false idea that alcohol is associated with success, refinement, and distinction. We feel sure, however, that the quality of American life cannot be enriched by the use of alcoholic beverages. It may be and has been impoverished and weakened by such use. Since the advertising of alcoholic beverages exists solely to increase the use of a harmful product, of which the consumption is already admittedly too great, we urge that this advertising be as nearly as possible eliminated. To this end, we urge the enactment into law of the Capper bill, No. S. 265.

Mr. Chairman, we have two or possibly three witnesses that we would like to present in the morning. They cannot be here this afternoon. They will speak briefly.

Then we would like to ask the indulgence of the committee for myself and Mr. Johnson, if he has any time in the 30-minute allotment, and Dr. Morris, to be given the full amount of time remaining, provided we deem it necessary.

Senator REED. The committee will consider that tomorrow. I wanted to ask you a question, Bishop. Undoubtedly some of the advertisements filed with the committee today are intended to leave an impression not justified by the facts.

I wonder, Bishop, if you know, or Mr. Johnson knows, whether the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which has a good deal of authority as to honest advertising, has ever been called to advertising of this nature, which is misleading or is intended to be misleading. Mr. JOHNSON. I can answer that by making this statement,

Mr. Chairman: No formal complaint has ever been filed before the Federal Trade Commission, making a definite claim as to violation of the law on that subject.

A number of conferences, however, have been held with the counsel, and those that are charged with the administration of that law. We have the opinion of the counsel of the Federal Trade Commission.

He gives it as his opinion that this bill is clearly within the province of Congress.

Senator REED. But that is not the question, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. I know; I am saying this: So many of our cases have been decided by the Supreme Court by decisions of 5 to 4, and we know there are a lot of minor cases.

It is our belief, our conviction, that if a case were properly prepared and the evidence were properly presented, as we have presented it here, it would be within the range of possibility that the Federal Trade Commission could render an opinion that the advertisements of liquor have transcended all bounds permitted by law. But we believe that that is not the only avenue of remedy that we might have. We believe that that is quite a doubtful remedy.

We therefore felt that we would be welcome, as we have been, in knocking at your door, and asking Congress to give us the relief.

Senator Reed. I have not gone into this question deeply enough to know whether or not this advertising which has been filed with the committee today as a part of your case, does get outside the law so far as the authority of the Federal Trade Commission is concerned.

If it does not, I should think it comes pretty close to it.
Mr. JOHNSON. I should think so, too.

Senator REED. And there is a remedy there. And if the Federal Trade Commission takes jurisdiction over this, you might get some relief on a cease and desist order.

Senator McFARLAND. That would only affect the truth and falsity of the advertising, and would not cut it out entirely.

Mr. JOHNSON. And it would not affect a great mass of advertising that is so insidious in its nature that it would not actually go over the line.

Senator REED. Of course, I am not indicating any opinion of my own, much less of the committee. The Capper bill is a very sweeping bill, and you want to consider any avenue of relief before you take the last, most drastic step.

Mr. JOHNSON. Another thing: Your Honor, it has been called to my attention that we would have to proceed in a specific case against a specific violator. We would pick out what was in our opinion the most flagrant case, but we would never know whether or not the other fellow did not just go up to the line and hesitated before going over it.

We feel that the boys and girls and those whom we are trying to protect rather demand that we should not be thrown into that dubious and questionable field—I mean “questionable” as to whether we would get the full remedy-when the Congress are so outraged, and, we believe, the people are so outraged that Congress should give us the relief through the bill which has been suggested.

We might do it, but, if Your Honor please, I want to make this suggestion: that all of us who are working here, the professional lawyers, and legalists—and we have several—are working without any compensation, in a case we think is bigger than any that could be presented to the Federal Trade Commission. And the preparing of that case would require an amount of money that we believe our forces, motivated by desire to protect our boys and girls, should not be required to provide.

We believe we have made a case here, and we will continue to make it, and cinch it and clinch it, one which will really commend to your committee a favorable report on this bill, that will outlaw a great deal which possibly could not be reached through the Federal Trade Commission.

Senator REED. There is no doubt that the Capper bill goes way beyond anything that you could do through the Federal Trade Commission. Obviously that is the case.

It has been of great convenience to the committee in getting the facts that Bishop Hammaker has been able to organize the proponents of the bill as he has. It has simplified things very much.

Now, have the opponents of this bill anybody who could speak for the opposition at this time?



Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a statement at this time.

We do not mind the courtesy that you want to show the proponents, , and we want to show them every consideration, but we have been informed that we will speak on Tuesday, and we do have people from all over the United States representing our organization that have scheduled their time to leave Washington tomorrow night.

Therefore, if this meeting will finish tomorrow afternoon, it will be all right for us tomorrow.

Senator REED. Will you give the reporter your name?

Mr. BRADY. Joseph E. Brady, coordinator of the State Councils of Brewery Workers, with office address at Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mr. JOHNSON. How much time will you take, Mr. Brady?

Senator REED. Yes; how much time will the opposition take, Mr. Brady?

Mr. BRADY. We have cut down our witnesses, due to the fact that the proponents have quite a lengthy list. We do not want to carry this on too long, so we have cut down our witnesses to six.

Our brief is very short, and I would like to have ten minutes, after the brief, on a little summary for our organization. Our brief is only two pages, and I believe in two minutes it could be finished.

Senator REED. You are speaking now for the brewery workers?
Mr. BRADY. That is right.

Senator REED. Now, are there any of the other opponents besides the brewery workers present, who can tell the committee how many witnesses they will have and how long it will take?

Mr. Brady, do you want to start in the morning first, or would you rather have the proponents finish up?

Mr. Brady. We would like to have the proponents finish, and then whatever the desire is of the chairman after that will be all right with

Senator REED. Bishop, how long will it take the proponents in the morning?

Bishop HAMMAKER. I think if we could have 25 minutes and then we would be permitted to use our unappropriated portion of time after the opponents have presented their case, we would appreciate that.

Senator REED. If you mean that you want to be permitted to make a statement following the opponents, the committee might possibly arrange that. There was no definite amount of time set. We intended to hear everybody and we intend to hear everybody.

We have driven through quite rapidly today, and I want to thank you and the others for that. This is as expeditious a hearing as we have had, and that is due to your

coordination of matters. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I happen to have a telegram from Mrs. Edison, which would take about half a minute to read: SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN : Concerning Senator Capper bill outlawing the advertising of liquor in Interstate commerce, including the radio, I take pleasure in expressing to you my hope that you will favorably recommend this bill for passage.

[ocr errors]


The advertisement of intoxicating liquor and the appeals made in these advertisements and on the radio for drinking such beverages are very objectionable to a great number of people, and are calculated to induce many of the youth of our Nation to take up the drinking of alcoholic beverages to their great injury and to the detriment of the Nation.

Knowing my husband's views regarding alcoholic liquors, I know that he would be in full accord with this position. Thanking you. Very truly,


(Mrs. THOMAS A. EDISON). Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator REED. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconyene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 13, 1947.)


TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1947


Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the Senate caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Clyde M. Reed presiding

Present: Senators Reed (presiding), Hawkes, and Magnuson.
Present also: Senator Capper.
Senator REED. The hearing will come to order.
Bishop, will you proceed?

Bishop HAMMAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Dr.
David M. Donnan of Tucson, Ariz., who has been conducting a crusade
against liquor advertising in a rather unique way.
Senator REED. You may proceed, sir.




Mr. DONNAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am David M. Donnan, of 328 North Martin Avenue, Tucson, Ariz., and Rolla, Mo.

I am director of the Liquor Ad Crusade of Rolla and Tucson.
We favor Senator Capper's bill S. 265.

I say “we” for, as director of the Liquor Ad Crusade and Poll, I am speaking for 73,579 voters representing every State in the Union, each voter having turned in a signed ballot against liquor advertisements.

A brief outline of our organization will enable a better understanding and evaluation of our appeal.

About a year and a half ago I was made a member of a church board of temperance in the St. Louis area. Incidentally our movement is independent of any sect, race, or creed. I knew from personal observation and reliable reports of the havoc wrought by the liquor business and had long since been convinced that it was one of, if not the most destructive, evil of our time, even worse than war itself, especially for your youth, the hope and strength of the nation.

I endeavored to evaluate the whole business thinking along common sense business lines, considering first:

The value of business. The astronomical sum of $8,770,000,000 was paid for liquor by consumers in 1946. Of this the liquor dealers turned over $2,526,000,000 in taxes to the United States Government as its share of the business. From the balance above taxes those in


« ForrigeFortsett »