favor of you opposition to the prohibition of wine, is that the grape is not a food product. In the case of beer that argument does not apply, does it? As I understand, there are a good many Members of Congress, as well as people outside, who regardless of the prohibition question want to conserve food, because we are short of food, and feel that to use grain and other food products for such purposes is not right. On that basis, what is your objection to an amendment that would prevent the use of grain and food stuffs in the manufacture of boor?

Representative LEA. I think there is a broad distinction between the two cases, as far as that is concerned. I do believe that it is inadvisable to absolutely stop the manufacture of 2.75 per cent beer. On that subject I would like to call the attention of the committee to the investigation that was made in England. England was divided into eight sections, and three commissioners were appointed for each section for the purpose of investigating industrial unrest. England placed some severe restrictions upon the liquor business. She compensated those who were injured, but she permitted the manufacture of light beer. These commissions reported practically unanimouslyin fact, there was no adverse report that it would be detrimental to the best handling of the war to have absolute prohibition. But they were in favor of restrictions. This is a very interesting report. It is contained in the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 237. The particular subject is discussed on pages 13, 17, 59-60, and 98-99.

Of course, as the Senator has pointed out, there is a broad distinction between these two cases, because the manufacture of beer does consume a food product, a materially important food product. That can not be denied. At the same time, of course, our barley is being sent to France and England for the manufacture of beer there, and to a certain extent there is an inconsistency in our sending barley there for that purpose and denying its use for that purpose at home.

Senator NORRIS. Yes; that is inconsistent; but after all, assuming that we ought to prohibit the use of barley, which is a food product, for the manufacture of beer, should we continue to manufacture it here because somebody else does? Could we not prohibit the exportation of barley to any other country?

Representative LEA. My own view would be that we might reach the point where we would be justified in permitting it to be used by the other countries and not in our own, because it may be a more pressing problem there than it is here.

Senator NORRIS. That is probably true in England, is it not?
Representative LEA. I think it is.

Senator NORRIS. There all the people drink ale?

Representative LEA. Yes; and I believe that in England the situation was more intensified than it was in our own country from the standpoint of the necessity for the light liquors.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Mr. Lea, let me call your attention to this: The time in which this subject was to be discussed pro and con is limited. I presume you would prefer to confine your own remarks to the peculiar conditions that exist in your State?

Representative LEA. Yes; because I am interested in that primarily, because I live among those people.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I thought I would call your attention to that so that you would know the time is limited, and if there is any specific points to which you care to address yourself you may do so.

Senator NORRIS. I diverted Mr. Lea, but only in order to get his idea about how he would feel if we eliminated his principal objection. Representative LEA. The primary thing I am insisting on is the injustice of depriving people of the reward of their labor after the expense of producing their crop has been incurred, while the vines are approaching harvest time and the ground can be devoted to no other purpose.

According to the reports of the Department of Commerce, France last year produced about 900,000,000 gallons of wine. France is certainly conducting this war heroically and successfully. She is a small country, pressed for food and everything that gives her strength in war, but yet she has never seen fit to take an action that would deprive her people of the reward of 1 gallon of wine. In the worst year of the war they produced 900,000,000 gallons of wine.

Speaking of the beer situation, there is to a certain extent a similar situation with reference to the hops growers. There are 3,500 or 4,000 acres of hops in my country, and I think there are perhaps 35,000 or 40,000 acres in the United States. It costs about $100 an acre to place hops lands in a condition to produce hops, so it costs about 12 cents a pound to produce the hops in the bale. At the present time probably 7 cents of the total cost of production of hops has been incurred, and to the limited extent that the hops industry is involved, that situation should, I believe, be considered by the committee.

Senator NORRIS. Mr. Lea, do you think, assuming it is necessary to conserve all the food we can, we ought to refuse to do it because it puts somebody out of business, if we need that food to win the war?

Representative LEA. No; but I believe this Nation is great enough and rich enough to be just and fair to its humblest citizen. I believe there is no reform so meritorious that it can not be put into effect by methods that are fair and just and that commend themselves to the citizenship of the country.

Senator NORRIS. Do you think we ought to compensate the bartender because he would lose his job?

Representative LEA. No; I think not.

Senator NORRIS. Is not that in line with the same argument?

Representative LEA. I am not here in defense of the saloons at all; I do not want anybody to get that idea. But I think there is a fair way to handle this matter, and justice can largely be accomplished by giving time. We have had this industry in California for 146 years. I do not believe there is any such pressing necessity as would require us to deprive those people of the reward of their labor while their crops are hanging on the vines.

Senator NORRIS. My last question was in reference to hops. I agree with your argument as far as the conservation measure is concerned, as far as it affects grapes, because they are not a food product. And while hops is not a food product, it goes into the manufacture of beer where a food product is used. So I think they are entirely different cases.

Representative LEA. My position is this: Bread must, of course, come before any kind of liquor; there can not be any question about that. The thing is that we should have a real necessity for that. The power is in the hands of the President. I believe he has the ability and the willingness to try to reach the solution that is best for this country. Power intrusted to a discretionary body is the policy that has been pursued by France, England, and Germany; and I believe that is the wisest policy for us. Russia, of course,

adopted a prohibition policy, and Turkey has always been a prohibition nation, but is not the leadership of England, France, and Germany on those matters of greater value to us than that of Russia and Turkey?

In closing, I want to say just this: The grape industry is to us in California comparatively a big one, but it is a small one to this Nation. California is doing its war work nobly, just as patriotically, efficiently, and worthily as any State in this Union. I do not claim any superior patriotism for us; I thank God we are all patriotic, and I believe we all want to do what is right for this country. But I want to say that before the other States of this Union punish us in this manner it would be just that they should show that they are contributing something to the war that we are withholding. So long as we do everything that can be required of a patriotic, countryloving, brave, and self-sacrificing people, I believe the other States of this Nation should be considerate of our peculiar conditions and not inflict upon us this thing that we believe would be an injustice. If this Nation determines that prohibition is necessary for the conservation of grain, or the conservation of its manhood, then let it be accomplished, but let us do it in a fair and just way. No legitimate reform needs to adopt methods that are unfair. Nobody is going to gain in the end by those methods, and if this reform is meritorious let it be accomplished in that way.

I thank you, gentlemen.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. I have been notified that Mr. Wheeler would speak this morning for the Anti-Saloon League. We will hear you, Mr. Wheeler.

STATEMENT OF MR. WAYNE B. WHEELER, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Mr. Wheeler, please state your full name, and the capacity in which you appear here.

Mr. WHEELER. My name is Wayne B. Wheeler; I am general counsel of the Anti-Saloon League of America.

As I understood it, I was to address myself to the question of the constitutionality of a complete war-prohibition measure.

that Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution, gives ample authority for the enactment of such a measure. It provides, among other things, that Congress shall have the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to maintain the Navy, to provide the common defense and general welfare, and to make all laws necessary for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.

I think it is pretty generally conceded now that these powers authorize Congress to pass an act that would prohibit the manufacture of food materials into intoxicating liquor, because that would have a close and vital relation to the supporting of the Army and the Navy and those who are back of them at home.

Senator NORRIS. I would like to suggest this, Mr. Wheeler. As far as I know, no one contests that proposition. I believe that is conceded, as far as you have gone.

Mr. WHEELER. Now the question arises, as I understand it: Does this authority give Congress the power to pass a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors?

Senator NORRIS. Particularly distilled spirits, which would involve the same constitutional question. That is the only thing involved here in this amendment.

Would it interfere with you if I read into the record now, so that you might comment on it if you see fit, an amendment that I have prepared as a substitute for the Jones amendment?

Mr. WHEELER. It would not interfere with my argument. I would be very glad, in order to save the time of the committee, if you would allow me, in making two or three of these main points, to put in the full quotation from the authorities rather than to take the time that would be necessary to read it.

Senator NORRIS. I think there would be no objection to that. Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Without objection that may be done.

Senator GRONNA. I do not want to interrupt your argument-I assume you have it prepared-but personally I would like to hear you on the question of the constitutionality of the provision in the Jones amendment which prohibits the sale of liquor. You understand, this liquor is already manufactured. I refer, of course, to the distilled liquors already manufactured, and most of which is now held in bond. I am not speaking of beer at all. The constitutionality of prohibiting the sale of distilled liquors now in bond is the particular part of the amendment that I would like to hear you on.

Senator NORRIS. That is what I would like to hear you on, and that is the reason I would like to have your comment on this proposed substitute for the Jones amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. If you care to read it into the record, I will be very glad to give you my opinion.

Senator NORRIS. It reads as follows:

That from and after the approval of this act and during the continuance of the present war, for the purpose of conserving the man-power of the Nation and to increase the efficiency of the production of arms, war munitions, food, and clothing for the Army, it shall be unlawful to sell, give away, furnish, or transport any distilled spirits for beverage purposes; and no distilled spirits held in bond at the date of the approval of this act shall be removed therefrom for beverage purposes. The President is hereby authorized and directed to prescribe rules and regulations in regard to the removal of distilled spirits now held in bond for other than beverage purposes.

After 30 days from the approval of this act and during the continuance of the present war, no grain, cereal, or other food product shall be used in the manufacture or production of beer or other intoxicating malt liquors.

Any person who violates any of the foregoing provisions or any of said rules and regulations made to carry the same into effect shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment for not exceeding two years, or both.

I want to call your attention, Mr. Wheeler, to the fact that that amendment, if agreed to, would apply to the sale of distilled spirits and would also apply to the use of food products in the manufacture of beer.

Mr. WHEELER. But would not prohibit the sale of beer and wine? Senator NORRIS. It would not prohibit the sale of beer and would not prohibit the manufacture of wine out of fruits and other things that are not food products.

Mr. WHEELER. Or the sale of wine that is already in existence. Senator NORRIS. There is no attempt to prohibit any sale, except as to distilled liquors which are now in bond.

Senator SMITH of South Carolina. Mr. Wheeler, that is in effect the Jones amendment, save that it does not prohibit the use of fruit, whether that fruit is edible or whether it is for the purpose of the manufacture of wine. The Jones amendment proposes that we shall stop the sale of distilled spirits already manufactured, but it does not prohibit the sale of wine or beer. Of course, in effect it prohibits the sale of beer, in that it prohibits the manufacture of beer; and the beer, as I understand it, can not be kept any length of time; it must be used more or less fresh, and it is so bulky that the prohibition of the use of any food products in the manufacture of beer practically prohibits the sale of beer. So the line of argument in which the committee would be more interested is, What is your opinion of the constitutionality of prohibiting the sale of liquors already manufactured, the manufacture or which is now prohibited, but the sale is not? We would like to have your argument on both points the amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska, and also the proposed Jones amendment.

Mr. WHEELER. I readily see the distinction that Senator Norris and Senator Smith are making between those kinds of liquors, those that are already manufactured and those that are to be manufactured. The argument that I present here will go to the point that the Government in time of war may prohibit both the manufacture and the sale of all kinds of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. If after presenting the argument on that point it is not clear, and you desire to ask further questions with relation to this specific amendment, I will be glad to answer them.

The question then narrows itself down to this: Has Congress power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposesboth the liquor that is to be manufactured and sold and that which has already been manufactured? We believe that Congress has that power, and in order to justify that conclusion I desire to place before the committee some of the general principles of law that have been sustained that lead us to that conclusion.

Congress does not need to have specific power conferred by some definite section or in so many words in order to act upon a given subject matter. As the Supreme Court has said, Congress has authority to act when the subject comes within the scope of a group of substantive or expressed powers.

If a number of these powers that are outlined or expressed in the Constitution would naturally give Congress reason to believe that that combined authority would allow them to pass a given act, the Supreme Court would sustain it. That principle was developed first of all, probably, during the Civil War, when the court took a long