Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

When there are petitions coming into Congress, every now and then people send them to our office instead of to their own representatives.

Senator REED. Turn them over to the clerk of the committee, please.

Miss-SMART. There are 12,406 names here, of which 3,459 are from the State of Delaware.

Mr. MARTIN. I should like leave, to present more of the same character.

Senator REED. Very well.
Mr. MARTIN. Thank you.

Senator REED. All right, Mr. Brady, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. BRADY, COORDINATOR, STATE COUNCILS,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BREWERY WORKERS, CINCINNATI, OHIO

а

Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Joseph E. Brady, of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Honorable sirs, speaking for the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers of America, representing 68,000 workers, we are protesting Senate bill S. 265, and for the reasons set forth:

That it is a prohibition bill and backed by the dry forces.

That it is a first step to bring about the return of national prohibition.

That on the last Gallup poll, September of 1946, two-thirds of the people of this country expressed their sentiments against the return of national prohibition.

This bill to ban advertising would not accomplish any actual purpose so far as promoting temperance is concerned. It is a first step toward national prohibition with a backdoor approach.

The argument of the drys that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is increased by advertising is a difficult one to answer because it can neither be proved nor disproved.

That it would have an economic effect on the thousands of workers in the alcoholic beverage industry and many more thousands in the allied trades.

That during prohibition the American people spent more than $36,000,000,000 for bootleg and smuggled liquor and beer. This was reported in the Economic Results of Prohibition, a book by Clark Warburton. We all know that this was tax-free and most of it not fit to drink. The death rate from alcoholism from 1920 to 1932, 13 years of prohibition, was 3.2 per 100,000 persons; from 1933 to 1943, 11 years following repeal, only 2.3 per 100,000—these last figures compiled and published by United States Bureau of Census.

Kansas, one of the three so-called dry States where there is very little advertising, paid to the Internal Revenue Department for alcoholic beverage taxes $34,132,973.98. Of this amount, $34,026,499.85 was for domestic excise tax on distilled spirits. This revenue was for 1946. These figures are from the Treasury Department Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., Monday, February 24, 1947.

That the Federal tax received by the Bureau of Internal Revenue from the alcoholic beverage industry for the year 1946 amounted to $2.690,982,965.88.

That the various States received in revenues from the alcoholicbeverage industry approximately $450,000,000.

In the scheme of human government, man may make laws which forbid, and he may be punished if he breaks those laws, but to remove temptation by law or to make men good by law is an assumption of authority as unjustified by reason as it is useless in practice.

Any law that will not be respected and cannot be enforced ought not to be placed upon the statute books.

A law that will breed lying and deceit in the people is not a temperance measure but an intemperance measure.

That the International Brewery Workers are sponsoring a program for the use and not abuse of alcoholic beverages. This program is being carried out by State Councils of Brewery Workers in the various States.

That other groups and organizations that are against the return of prohibition are also sponsoring educational programs along these lines.

There are any number of valid reasons why this committee should not report S. 265 out, but paramount is the fact that the people of the United States repudiated national prohibition after a long and fair trial; are still in the majority opposed to a return of national prohibition, and this bill, sponsored by the prohibition forces, is actually a first step toward a return of national prohibition.

And, Mr. Chairman, I have two exhibits here. I have listed them as A and B.

One is the tear sheet of a national magazine of October 28, actual photographs of the conditions in the State of Kansas in “blind pigs."

Senator REED. They will be received and filed.

Mr. BRADY. I would like, if there is no objection, to have the text incorporated in the record of this committee.

Senator REED. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The text referred to is as follows:)

WETS FIGHT DRYS IN KANSAS ELECTION

(Photographs for Life by Mark Kauffman) In Wichita, Kans., battleground of the late Prohibitionist, Carrie Nation, her monument was smashed recently by a beer truck. This was regrettable but legal, for 3.2 beer is approved by Kansas law. About the same time a straw vote in Carrie's home town of Medicine Lodge showed that 31 percent of its citizens now drink hard liquor, which is a crime. Both incidents have a symbolic significance. Dry Kansas is getting so wet that the State's prohibition law, never seriously challenged before, is the biggest issue of the current election campaign.

To Harry Woodring, Democratic candidate for Governor in a State which has had only five Democratic governors, the issue is a godsend. Plumping for repeal, he has become the darling of the wets. The drys prefer Republican Frank Carlson, who can afford to be leisurely about reforming the law because his party is almost sure of winning anyway. But the prohibition issue cuts right across party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats in Kansas run the gamut from the WCTU, which is especially strong there, to ardent advocates of repeal—with a large number of people in the middle who drink wet and vote dry.

In the 11 days he spent in Kansas, Life photographer Mark Kauffman had no trouble finding and entering saloons in virtually every town he visited. The photographic evidence he gathered of the interesting contrast between Kansas law and its habits is shown above and on the following pages.

THE SPEAKEASIES ARE EVERYWHERE AND RAIDS SELDOM BOTHER THEM

The 66-year-old prohibition amendment to the Kansas State Constitution reads, “The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be forever prohibited in this State, except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes.” But to a casual visitor it might seem that everybody in Kansas is either a doctor, a scientist, or a mechanic.

Roadhouse speakeasies are spread all over the State, and one successful Topeka liquor vendor operates right under the window of the mayor's committee room. At some of them you take your own bottle, easily bought from any number of local bootleggers or brought in from the neighboring wet States. At others you ask for the "soup man," or bootlegger-in-attendance, who wanders casually from table to table taking orders. Prices range from $8 to $15 a fifth for Kansans' favorite liquors-rum and brandy. The liquor is the best there is because the liquor runners can afford to pay high wholesale prices. It is like national prohibition all over again, with the same old dodges, the same old hypocrisy.

Around election time a few local raiding squads dash around the speakeasies and blow their whistles, but the proprietors easily avoid any trouble by converting their places to “pitcher joints," where all the liquor is kept in a pitcher under the bar and can be poured down the drain if any sheriff gets too nosy. By a curious quirk in the Federal liquor laws, speakeasy owners can buy Federal licenses to sell liquor in Kansas, are only breaking the Federal law if they contract to have liquor transported into the S'ate. Although there have been many Federal raids recently, the agents naturally have a hard time proving that the speakeasy owners had anything to do with bringing the liquor in.

Most of the time, however, liquor vendors have less trouble with the law than they do getting help to clean up the empties the morning after.

WETS MADE A GOOD START BUT THE DRYS ARE STRONG

Kansas Republicans are still reeling from the blow they got when Roosevelt's ex-Secretary of War Harry Woodring shot out of political hiding, blasted prohibition, and got himself nominated Democratic candidate for Governor. By State tradition the present Governor, Andrew Schoeppel, is not running for a third term, so the job of beating Woodring and his wets has fallen on up-andcoming Republican Congressman Frank Carlson.

Despite all the wet-dry hullabaloo, Carlson should not have much difficulty. Woodring's call for immediate repeal of prohibition has forced reluctant Republicans to promise a referendum in 1948. But the Republicans are backed by such powerful dry organizations as the WCTU and the political machine of old "Alf” Landon. In traditionally Republican Kansas, the Democrats will have a tough time, whatever the issues.

Even if the Democrats should win, however, the political dopesters hold out little hope for repeal of State prohibition. The curious Kansan state of mind was once described by the State sage, the late William Allen White. Said he, "Kansans will vote dry as long as the voters can stagger to the polls.”

Mr. Brady. Also, here is a pamphlet on prohibition propaganda. I would like to present that.

Also I would like to present to the committee the names of our delegates. We have delegates from New York, Connecticut, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana, Massachusetts, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. I have their names here, and the States they come from.

Senator Reed. Do you want them to appear, Mr. Brady?
Mr. BRADY. Yes.
Senator REED. You may proceed.

Mr. BRADY. At this time, I would like to call on Mr. Anthony Ferro, executive secretary of the New York State Council of Brewery Workers, as our first speaker.

Senator REED. Proceed, sir.

62655_-47

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. FERRO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NEW

YORK STATE COUNCIL OF BREWERY AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS, UTICA, N. Y.

а

Mr. FERRO. Mr. Chairman, my name is Anthony J. Ferro. I am the executive secretary of the New York State Council of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers, which organization represents 15,000 workers in this State, the State of New York.

I come before you today in behalf of the beer drivers, brewery workers, shipping clerks, and office employees of our industry whose jobs will be affected if Senate bill 265 were favorably reported by your committee, passed, and made into law.

Mr. Chairman, this bill which you have before you is a prohibition measure. If passed it will prohibit legitimate concerns from advertising their products. No other concern in this great country is prohibited from advertising its product.

It will prohibit radios, newspapers, and magazines from accepting alcoholic beverage ads. What is so bad about newspapers and radios advertising alcoholic beverages? Certainly I have never seen an ad or heard a radio program where the public was told that they must take to drink.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, persons who wish to impose their wishes in this great free country which our children fought so hard to retain can do so by bringing their communities to a local-option vote and thereby letting the majority of the people decide whether or not beverages should be continued to be sold. We have already heard of the dry progress. Local-option elections are permitted in approximately 31 States at the present time. As a result of this organized dry minority of people, there has been much bootlegging, speakeasies, and the operation of stills in Kentucky, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia.

Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, of the Department of Justice, can bear that out. In my own State of New York, I know of speakeasies which operate in townships which have already voted dry. In the past 8 years in New York State, 11 townships which formerly voted dry have since voted to once again permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.

I know it is needless for me to say anything about the amount of taxes which your State and county receive from the sale of beverages. At this time taxes are secondary. We, of our industry, cannot afford this type of prohibition which this dry group of people are trying to impose. It will result in unemployment in our industry, especially in the great many shipping plants which are located throughout the country, not mentioning the smaller ones. Radio will be affected as well as newspaper and magazine companies and their workers. Paper mills, steel mills, glass mills, farmers, et cetera, will also be affected. There are over 200 industries which in some way or the other would be affected if the sale of alcoholic beverages were curtailed.

I ask you, gentlemen, can we afford any more unemployment than we already have or will have? Can we afford to give in to a few selfish persons who can only see things their way? We, in this great country of ours where everyone is given freedom of speech, cannot be muzzled by this small minority. If it is their opinion that there is considerable drinking and it should be cut down, then there should be educa

tion in the moderate use of beverages, and this should be brought to the attention of drinking persons through the medium of radio and newspaper advertising. Legislation of this type will not accomplish their purpose.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation, if reported favorably by your honorable committee and finally made into law, will not only cause unemployment in the brewing industry but will also cause a great financial loss to those persons who have investments in the various industries, many of whom are small investors. Many of those investors who may sustain losses will come from the States of Maine, New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Indiana, and many more too numerous to mention.

I appeal to you in behalf of the hundreds of thousands of persons in our country, many of whom are servicemen, who will be affected if this bill is reported favorably, passed, and finally signed by our President, to please vote against reporting this bill favorably.

I have also attached, Mr. Chairman, to my remarks, the industries and the commodities which would be affected in the event that the sale of beverages would be affected. I wish to also ìle a copy of the entire statement with

your committee.

1

LIST OF INDUSTRIES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY

Acacia gum
Accounting equipment and supplies
Acids
Adhesives
Advertising
Advertising agents
Advertising displays
Advertising (electrical)
Advertising (outdoor)
Advertising novelties
Agar
Ageing plants
Agitators
Agriculture and horticulture equipment
Air conditioning
Air mail and express
Allied chemicals
Aluminum caps
Aluminum goods-castings
Amusement industry
Animal feed
Aniseed
Asbestos filter pads
Asphalt roofing
Automobiles
Automobile products
Bags
Baking industry
Banking, commercial, investment
Bar equipment and supplies
Barley
Barrel-branding machines
Barrel-handling equipment
Barrel racks
Barrel stackers
Barrel washing machines
Barrels
Baskets and bassinets

Batteries
Belting
Bins
Biscuits and cracker industry
Bitters
Blacksmiths
Blending and rectifying equipment
Blueprinting
Boats
Boilers
Boots and shoe industry
Borates
Bottles
Bottle closures
Bottle capping, sealing, and corking

industry Bottle cartons Bottle-filling machines Bottle rinsing and washing machines Bottle stoppers Bottle wrappers Bottling equipment Books and job printing Boxes Bran Brandy Branding machines Brass and bronze Brick industry Brushes Building construction Bulldozers Bungs Burlap Burnt sugar color (caramel) Business machines Cabinetmaking Calculating machines

« ForrigeFortsett »