the liquor empire have grown as rich as Croesus, domineering and devastating, all at the expense of the well-being of their fellows.

Like Pilate, they wash their hands of any responsibility whatsoever for all the damage they do, whereas they should be held responsible and be required to compensate as far as possible for this damage. Should this be done fairly and rigorously, they would soon be forced

out of business.

It is estimated that the Government paid out more than $4 in direct and indirect expense on account of crime, insanity, sickness, delinquency, et cetera, caused by liquor, for every dollar it received in taxes from the business. Therefore, the more of business of this kind we have the more we lose and this loss is made up from tax money we citizens pay. In addition, there is the damage to individuals, families, and society which cannot be evaluated in currency.

Henry Ford said "The damage done by drinking is the only real reason that drinking is a public subject at all."

If a common-sense businessman were in this liquor business in the place of the Government, he would close it out forthwith for the simple reason that he could not afford to carry on a business in which his expenses amounted to several times the gross income from the business. This does not take into account the saving of grain and other products which would then be available for food and feed, or the cold-blooded fact that this $8,000,000, if diverted from liquor, would go for the most part into homes, useful merchandise, raising the standard of living, improving general business, et cetera.

Cost in personnel. It is generally accepted that there are 50,000,000 liquor drinkers in the United States, including 3,000,000 heavy drinkers and 750,000 chronic alcoholics. We know that these drinkers are not all in good health. The heavy drinkers are not good insurance risks and alcoholics are sick, substandard, and are not accepted in insurance circles. But, disregarding all this, figuring actuarily and generously, allowing an expectancy of 50 years for all drinkers it would take 1,000,000 new drinking recruits each year to keep up this army of 50,000,000 drinkers.

It should also be remembered that all heavy drinkers and alcoholics develop from moderate and social drinkers and that there is no way of knowing in advance just which ones will end up as alcoholics. The number of recruits drawn from moderate to heavy drinkers and from heavy drinkers to alcoholics is much higher in proportion because of the increased mortality due to ravages of drink.

My years of experience as a director of a YMCA in Pennsylvania thoroughly convinced me that it is much cheaper and more effective to prevent youth from going over the precipice than it is to try to salvage the wreckage after he has gone over; that in this field an ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure. I decided that my efforts should be directed along preventive lines. I therefore proposed a campaign against liquor advertisements since advertising attracts a large portion of the drinking recruits.

I prepared a paper which was presented to the temperance board. In it I suggested launching a liquor ad crusade against liquor advertising using colorful stickers, one reading, "I didn't like this ad in my paper"; another, "Liquor ads must go." Liquor ads to be torn from newspapers and periodicals, a sticker attached and returned to the publishers as a protest against such ads.

We established headquarters in Rolla, Mo., ordered 2,000,000 stickers and by the aid of some kindly publicity, in an incredibly short time we were receiving orders and making shipments for distribution into every State in the Union; also Alaska, Hawaii, and Canada. People were so eager to do something about liquor ads which they resented and which for the most part are an insult to their intelligence, that we distributed more than 9,000,000 protest stickers in 18 months, also large quantities of literature.

As supplemental to the sticker ad crusade which we started in 1946, in which we distributed more than 9,000,000 protest stickers, we proposed a liquor ad poll to provide an opportunity for those who cared, to vote for or against liquor ads.

Form 33, sample herewith, was designed for this purpose. It reads, "I disapprove of liquor advertisements in newspapers, periodicals, over the radio, and of liquor propaganda in the movies and otherwise." Also an alternate, "I approve of liquor advertisements," et cetera, an "X" to be marked in a square as on standard ballots. Some literature was prepared, and a date, February 2, was set for the opening of the poll.

Concerning the results of the poll, it should be noted that the poll was taken entirely by volunteers, in a comparatively short time, and with but little publicity. Some churches reported practically 100 percent voting against, and in other cases, all of those to whom the ballot was presented, voted against liquor ads.

From some States the ballots returned were mostly from a small area and were sent in by a few persons, as in the case of Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.

For example, the montage of this picture, exhibit No. 1, is made up principally of strip or sheet ballots received through one woman from New Castle, Pa., and is about 20 percent of the State's total poll. One man in New Mexico sent in 50 percent of the State's poll.

These 900 ballots, exhibit 2, were received through one woman from Corpus Christi, Tex., and represents 40 percent of the Texas poll. I mention these examples to illustrate the fact that our poll is just a token, and only suggestive of what could be done by a united, well publicized poll.

Mr. Chairman, may I digress just briefly to say that, unaware of the new ruling, before I came east, I suggested to some who might care to do so, that they might wire your committee in my care. As a result, in the last 36 hours, I have received 114 telegrams and nearly 200 letters from 24 States, adding more than 75,000 to the supporters of S. 265.

Senator REED. You may file those.

Mr. DONNAN. If I may file them, I shall appreciate it.

Senator REED. We will keep them in the files of the committee. We will not undertake to print them.

Mr. DONNAN. Thank you kindly.

I should like to direct your attention to some other factors which we think worthy of your thoughtful consideration, and which suggest to us the current overwhelming opposition to liquor ads:

(1) A recent Gallup poll indicates that one-third of the people of United States of America would do away with "booze" altogether.

62655-47-6

Since they are opposed to liquor, it is reasonable to believe that they are also opposed to liquor advertisements.

(2) During the past few months, 25 denominations having 128,000 churches and 25,277,000 members passed temperance or antiliquor resolutions. Undoubtedly a large portion of this membership is opposed to liquor ads.

(3) There are an estimated 90,000,000 people in the United States of America who do not use intoxicants. In view of the fact that they do not want liquor it is safe to say that for the most part, neither do they want liquor ads. Also many people who drink, favor the elimination of the unscrupulous and unfair liquor advertisements.

(4) About one-third of the area of the United States of America is dry by choice of its citizenry, and since they are thumbs down on liquor they would be the same on liquor ads. The present practice of putting liquor propaganda on the air over these areas is manifestly unfair.

The 75,000 ballots are represented by these boxes, Mr. Chairman, that are over here. They are not uniform in size, but they are uniform in spirit.

Of course, some of the above groups overlap somewhat, but they suggest the magnitude of the opposition and the decided trend against liquor advertisements. My impression is that this tide is rising rapidly. I have just been informed that the circulation of the Saturday Evening Post which refuses such ads has increased 1,000,000 in the last year apparently largely at the expense of liquor ad carrying papers from which subscriptions are being canceled on account of their liquor advertisements.

The liquor interests are spending $100,000 a year in seductive advertising. They brazenly capture and profane our sports events, classical musical programs, and news broadcasts, hanging their parasitic propaganda to them to deceive and entrap the unsuspecting. They muscle their poisonous deceit into our homes to victimize members of our families. Their objective is to make drinking appear respectable in the eyes of the uninformed and susceptible. Assuming that 500,000 new recruits a year are secured by advertising, the cost is only $200 per person. Once they are ensnared the victims contribute an average of $158 or more per year to the business, not just this year but every year, many of them reaching the point where they contribute their all as confirmed slaves to the traffic. The liquor interests then say of them that they were below par anyway, that they are sick.

Sure they are sick, but how did they get sick? We know from experience some who were otherwise our brightest, most promising, and most 'capable citizens who are now among this wretched group of slaves. This is the price we are paying for allowing this business to continue. It is hard to believe that our Government would have anything to do with such a business, but it seems to hold the tax dollar so close it blinds its eyes, and all the while the liquor interests, brandishing money taken from their customers, tell what great benefactors they are.

It is well to remember, that every dollar spent in liquor advertisements is in direct competition with all worth while advertising,

The liquor empire apparently holds the Government law-enforcement authorities and the secular press largely under its control. No. other line of business would dare to so flout fair practice and Government regulations in advertising, as for example, concerning habitforming drugs and poisons, or so greately misrepresent their products. If such unfair practices were followed to the same extent in general advertising its potency would very soon be destroyed.

We are not indifferent to cancer, tuberculosis, or infantile paralysis. We found that to stop yellow fever we had to kill the carrier, the mosquito. We favor Senator Capper's bill, S. 265, because it will eliminate the carrier of this thing which is infinitely worse than any one of these dread diseases when measured by the damage it has done and is doing to the Nation.

In selling poisons, fire arms, narcotics, or explosives, the sales are regulated by law. A record must be kept. Bottles must be marked "poison." The seller has a definite responsibility. In a lottery the buyer has at least one chance to win, but with liquor it is a case of heads I win, tails you lose, both against the victim. If a drinker follows.it hard, he hasn't a chance; he is bound to lose. Dope injures primarily the one who uses it, but with liquor the drinker loses control and often develops insane ideas and whether in his murder cases he kills with a knife, gun, or with his car it is murder just the same, and more often than otherwise it is the innocent victim who suffers. He is making our highways slaughterways.

The national welfare is involved since the tremendous increase in the number of gallons of liquor consumed per capita indicates that we are fast becoming a nation of drinkers and drunkards. Cutting off liquor advertisements will not directly affect those who drink, but it, will greatly reduce the number of new recruits gained through advertising.

A large percentage of crimes and accidents would not have happened had it not been for some intoxication. Each of these and other objectionable groups would be decreased in proportion as the number of first drinkers is reduced.

Probably the most outstanding advertisements of the liquor interests, in their skill and alluring attractiveness, are those found in Time, Life, and Fortune, of the Luce empire. The estimated annual "take" by Mr. Luce through these magazines for liquor advertising is $8,400,000 Judas money, for this is a betrayal of our youth.

Apparently these three magazines, heavily drenched in liquor, are doing much to encourage boys and girls in colleges, schools, and homes to take their first cocktail or drink, since the misleading, deceitful advertisements make it appear that drinking is essential for a cheerful evening or a joyous occasion, and that to rate in better society one must drink moderately. They say nothing about the other side of the picture, of liquor as poison and a habit-forming drug, of the wrecked lives and homes, lost health or position, of crime, murder and, finally, ruin. The sophistication-slanted ads are devastating among impressionable teen-agers.

In this connection the Chicago Tribune of February 5, states that a postal deficiency for Life and Time alone amounts to 12,000,000 dollars a year. We object to our public funds being used as a subsidy for any such purpose.

One of the products the liquor interests widely advertises is beer. Dr. Saleeby, British scientist, says of it:

Beer is a devitalized, devitamized, drugged, decayed, impoverished food and is nothing under the sun but poisoned water.

Well, I am not a scientist, but judging from its effects and the appearance and conditions of its victims after a round of debauchery, Dr. Saleeby must be right. What gets me is the fact that my Government, the richest, most powerful, and presumably the most humane in the world, should stoop to share in the profits of such a damaging and demoralizing business.

Advertising has been called the lifeblood of mass production, but liquor advertising may well be said to be the life blood of mass destruction. In the hands of the unscrupulous liquor dealers it is a means of heartless exploitation of the Nation's most valuable asset, its personnel. As it is commonly used it cannot be reasonably defended or justified. Outlawing liquor ads is a sensible thing to do. It is good business, humanitarian and patriotic. We owe it to our youth to try to protect them at least to that extent from such an enemy. They are worth saving.

Since liquor ads can be banished effectively only by an act of Congress, we appeal to you for effective action in support of Senate bill

265.

I came all the way from Arizona to present this appeal, primarily in the interest of the youth of America and on behalf of the loyal men and women, now 150,000 of them, whom I have the honor to represent.

We trust that this bill, S. 265, will receive your favorable consideration.

Bishop HAMMAHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Richard Spencer Palmer, chairman of the National Federation of Men's Bible Classes, to appear now as a witness.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SPENCER PALMER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEN'S BIBLE CLASSES, NATIONAL TEMPERANCE COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." Liquor advertising will never promote righteousness, but does undoubtedly contribute toward the promoting of sin.

This is a Christian Nation founded upon Christian principles. As good American citizens we should do everything in our power to make it a nation to be an example to all the world. Liquor advertising will never accomplish this end.

An advertisement appeared in one of our magazines not long ago depicting William Penn, and to the left of it had a sign of cross keys, and underneath this sign this caption-"St. Peter's keys were symbolized on the sign that stood outside the Cross Keys Tavern, Doylestown, Pa., in 1745." Such an advertisement is to be resented, as it makes an attempt to mix religious principles with liquor. In other words William Penn was a Quaker and absolutely opposed to liquor, and we may all agree that it is not right to associate St. Peter with a