« ForrigeFortsett »
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.
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?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. BRADY, COORDINATOR, STATE COUNCILS,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BREWERY WORKERS, CINCINNATI, OHIO
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
a 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?
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.
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,
MINA M. EDISON.
(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 reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 13, 1947.)
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1947
UNITED STATES SENATE,
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.
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. STATEMENT OF DAVID M. DONNAN, REPRESENTING LIQUOR AD
CRUSADE, TUCSON, ARIZ.
I am director of the Liquor Ad Crusade of Rolla and Tucson.
I “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
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.