A nation can not win in time of war unless it is up to its best, physically, economically, and morally; and this Nation can not be at its best when it maintains a traffic which the Supreme Court has called a source of misery to society, a traffic that injures the efficiency and health of the people. No government can develop a soldiery, or develop a citizenship to supply that soldiery and keep it up to its best, when it is perpetuating or permitting that kind of a traffic, a traffic that injures the physical and the moral man. The courts themselves have decided that the general use of intoxicating liquors may injure the moral welfare of the people. The officers of the Army and Navy have testified over and over again that liquor is a detriment to the man that is in the Army or the man that is a prospective soldier. At the time of the Spanish-American War, Col. Maus said that about half of those who applied for the service were physically or mentally unfit because of the use of intoxicating liquor. The recruiting officer at Toledo, Ohio, said, in this war, that if we had the liquor traffic abolished the recruiting of an Army would be a comparatively easy job. Senator GRONNA. A good many of us believe that, too, Mr. Wheeler, but on the other hand we find that European nations believe in giving their soldiers intoxicating liquors. At least, that is what they are doing. I can readily see that the transportation of liquor from one State to another will, of course, embarrass the Government in the prosecution of the war, but here is a product already manufactured, a product which may be sold within a particular State, and we are saying in this bill that you shall not sell this liquor; we do not say it shall not be sold in interstate commerce. Mr. WHEELER. No matter whether it has already been manufactured or is to be manufactured, it is the sale of it which injures the Army in carrying out its purpose and work it has in hand. And if the sale of liquor slows down the energies of the Army and Navy or those who support them, it has a reasonable relation to the support of the Army and Navy and the work which they have to do. Here is what eminent officers and authorities say. Earl Roberts said: Thirteen thousand abstainers are equal to 15,000 nonabstainers. Give me a teetotal army and I will lead it anywhere. Sir John French says: Abstinence and self-control make a man more serviceable. If men want to see regiments, battalions, squadrons, and batteries, smart and efficient, if they have at heart the fame of the glorious regiment to which they belong, they must practice these great qualities of self-control and self-sacrifice. Methuen says: I appeal to these gallant men who represent this great Empire to act their part as England expects them to do; and throw away from them the vile curse of drink, so that they may make themselves fit in body and nerve to face a foe that is as courageous as he is brutal in war. Lieut. Gen. Sir Reginald Hart says: As an officer, I support temperance because I know that officers and men who avoid drink are physically and mentally efficient, their nerves are stronger, they march better, there is far less sickness and crime, and their power of resistance is strengthened. From the military, point of view we can not tolerate alcohol among our soldiers. War is merciless; men must be competent; the drinking man makes a bad soldier, no matter how much Germany may believe in feeding up her men on alcohol in order to screw their fighting courage to the sticking point. The army won't stand alcohol because it must conserve its man power. This is the statement of Gen. Pershing made recently: From the military point of view we can not tolerate alcohol among our soldiers. War is merciless; men must be competent; the drinking man makes a bad soldier, no matter how much Germany may believe in feeding up her men on alcohol in order to screw up their fighting courage to the sticking point. The Army won't stand alcohol, because it must conserve its man power. Admiral Sir J. R. Jellico says: As regards straight shooting it is everyone's experience that abstinence is necessary for efficiency. By careful and prolonged tests, the shooting efficiency of the men was proven to be 30 per cent worse after the rum ration than before. What is true of the soldier is true of the man who makes the supplies for the soldiers and sailors. Neither civilian nor soldier can be at his best for work in the trenches or in the factory when he uses intoxicating liquor. It takes three or four men at home to support one soldier in the trenches. If the civilians at home destroy their efficiency through drink they destroy the support of the Army just as effectively as if the evil result came in direct contact with the Army itself. I think it is very clear, too, in some of the laws you have been passing, that the Congress has in mind the necessity, in order to back up that Army properly, that you give every encouragement possible to help create a national patriotism and spirit that will back up the Army; any institution in this country that cripples or hamstrings the national spirit and national patriotism ought to be eliminated in order that the Army and the Navy may do their work properly and have the support of the people. The liquor traffic not only weakens our national patriotism and spirit but aids those forces in our Government which are disloyal to it. The essentials to patriotism are intelligence and morality. Liquor endangers both. It makes its deadliest attacks on the brain, as the New York Health Bulletin said. "Civilized man is brute animal plus high brain development. Alcohol destroys the high brain development and leaves the brute animal." Liquor dulls the intellect and weakens moral fiber. It weakens patriotism. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co., 160 U. S. 668, the act of August 1, 1888, the Supreme Court said: An act of Congress which plainly and directly tends to enhance the respect and love of the citizens for the institutions of his country, and to quicken and strengthen his motives to defend them, and which is germane to and intimately connected with and appropriate to the exercise of some one or all of the powers granted by Congress, must be valid (p. 429). Again, the court said: Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of the battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use but one so closely connected with the welfare of the Republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country. No narrow view of the character of this proposed use should be taken. Its national character and importance, we think, are plain. The * * * power to condemn for this purpose need not be plainly and unmistakably deduced from any one of the particularly specified powers. Any number of those powers may be grouped together, and any inference from them all may be drawn that the power 'claimed has been conferred (p. 430). No one can point to any specific authority to purchase the battle grounds and erect the monuments. The court sustained the law on the ground that an act which increased your patriotism and love for your country and was germane to some or all of the purposes or power of the Government, was constitutional. How has the liquor traffic of this Nation hindered along this line? I hope every member of this committee will read the significant report of the evidence taken before the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. That report shows the United States Brewers' Association and the allied trades, the liquor trades, are the ones that have been furnishing funds for this unpatriotic organization known as the National German-American Alliance, and they have been crippling the Army and crippling the Navy by crippling the spirit that is back of that Army and that Navy. What does that report show? That the organization was formed for two purposes in this country; one, to promote German kultur, the other, to protect the liquor traffic. How do they promote German kultur, according to their ideals? First by getting their grip upon the public school and force the teaching of German in those public schools. The testimony shows that in some of the States they have actually gone in to make an issue to get the majority of the school board so that they could do this very thing. While it is not in that report, you will remember doubtless what Mr. Metcalf, of Nebraska, when he was here, said. He is a member of the Council of Defense. He said that in certain parts of Nebraska, up to 30 days before that time, there were schools where they had not sung the national hymn, but had sung the German national hymn; that in other places they had practically crowded out the English-speaking schools. That was part of the propaganda. It seems to me that instead of having more German in the public schools, to increase the use of a language that falsifies and misrepresents American ideals, we need a little more plain-spoken English to tell about the brutality and the frightfulness of German civilization. And this organization has been for years carrying on that sort of propaganda. They have written in some of their charters the words as an expression of their purpose, "To promote German ideals," to promote German kultur and German civilization. What is German kultur and civilization? It is the idea that the State can do no wrong; that might makes right; that they can break their treaties as they did with Belgium; and that they can do all those things that are so contrary to the spirit of a true-hearted and patriotic American. Senator GRONNA. The Senate has prohibited the teaching of German in the schools here. It is hardly necessary to consume time on that. Mr. WHEELER. Yes; in the District of Columbia, we are thankful to the Senate for taking that action. When this organization, as this report shows, was doing not only this but a dozen other things that are contrary to the interests and the ideals of America, it is clear that it has a vital relation to the matter we are discussing. Let me read to you some of the testimony. Here are the page references for every point that I am making along this line: (Outline of evidence taken before Subcommittee of Senate Committee on the Judiciary, second session Sixty-fifth Congress. Page references are to official report.) Charter provisions of German-American Alliance granted by Congress, 1907, to study American institutions, to cultivate German language, to protect civil and political rights, to perpetuate the memory of German pioneers, and assist in naturalization, etc. (p. 6). The German Alliance violated its charter (pp. 11-642, and in the manner hereinafter set forth). It organized Germans in alliances to carry out the plans of the organization and thus hinder the purpose of the Government to become a more perfect union (pp. 22, 37, 38, 692). Opposed assimilation of Germans in America and was pro-German in activities (pp. 24, 53, 54, 108, 110, 117, 118, 635–643). Attempted to force the compulsory teaching of German in elementary public schools to Germanize America (pp. 24, 44, 49, 100, 187–659). Alliance encouraged German press to carry out its program (pp. 42–696). Promoted German ideals and exalted German kultur (pp. 11, 25, 26, 652–658). Entered politics to elect officials friendly to alliance program (pp. 31, 47, 7, 33, 35, 65, 107, 124, 128, 306). Aroused prejudice against England and other friendly nations (pp. 14-65). Opposed loan to allies (pp. 38, 112, 115). Called our Government a failure (p. 309). The Kaiser decorated the president of the alliance for his services to Germany (p. 84). Encouraged disloyalty to oath (pp. 37-61). Opposed war program (pp. 41, 55, 79, 112, 115, 118-139). Ally of Pan-German Alliance in its plan for German world domination (pp. 10, 11, 47, 95-694). Opposed prohibition (pp. 25, 27, 36, 223–648). United States Brewers' Association furnished money to the German Alliance through the national association of commerce and labor (pp. 205, 206–208). Senator Wolcott asked the following questions (p. 208): Senator WOLCOTT. Then this organization, of which you were the head, the National Association of Commerce and Labor, interested primarily in combating prohibition, was to the extent you have indicated to operate through the German-American Alliance, you supplying simply the funds and they conducting the propaganda which you were primarily interested in? That was the situation, was it not? Mr. ANDREAE. Yes; I think that is correctly stated. Page 216, Senator Wolcott asked this further question: Senator WOLCOTT. So that the activities that you have been describing, carried on through the German-American Alliance, were emanating in the last analysis from the United States Brewers' Association? Mr. ANDREAE. Oh, yes; the funds-and the allied trades. If there is an organization in this country that is backed by the liquor traffic and that organization or alliance carries on a propaganda that hinders this Nation in winning the war, thus crippling the efforts of the Army and Navy. Surely you are supporting the Army and Navy when you prohibit the traffic that supports this unpatriotic organization. The safety of the Nation is paramount. Congress enacts laws to support the Army, to defend it. The relation of this legislation to this well-recognized power of Congress is not fanciful but real. Senator GRONNA. I think the Senate has revoked the charter of the German-American Alliance. Mr. WHEELER. The vote has not been taken. I hope the Senate will do so. Senator GRONNA. I am sure it will. Mr. WHEELER. That is all right, but you have not even then gone to the root of the matter. In Cincinnati when the National GermanAmerican Alliance disbanded under fire, fearing that the Senate and House would do this thing, they formed other organizations under different names to carry out the same purposes. And where do these organizations get their money? They get it in part from the liquor trade. It is a disloyal combination, and by the passing of this law you will cut off the financial support of that disloyal combination in this country; you will do much to help support the Army and help maintain the Navy and help put a great national spirit and enthusiasm and patriotism back of that Army and Navy. If you can do these other things because they help the Army, I can not conceive why Congress does not have the right to prohibit the sale of liquor, which cuts down efficiency, which injures the health, which injures the public morals, which injures the dependability of both the soldier and the sailor and everyone that is in the factory or on the farm supporting that soldier or that sailor. We have every reason to believe that the United States Supreme Court will sustain this law, whether you use the whole of the program or the part Judge Norris has referred to. I believe that all of it will be sustained. Agreeable to the ruling of the committee that arguments made on the pending measure may be extended, permit me to add the following: The decisions quoted for the most part have to do with war powers over property and commodities which have inherent rights to exist, but as Willoughby on the Constitution said: "The power to wage war enables the Government to override in many particulars private rights which in times of peace were inviolable." It is only a matter of conjecture as to how far the courts will go in sustaining a law which Congress felt was necessary to enact for the national safety, defense, and support of the Army and Navy. The decision referred to from Georgia was not quoted as an authority on the power of the Government to take useful private property in time of peace or in time of war from its loyal subjects, but simply as an illustration of how the court views a war emergency and the power of the Government to meet it. The case represents one step in a series of authorities corroborating the theory for which we contend, namely, that the Government has extraordinary powers in time of war to carry out its fundamental purposes and its expressed and substantive powers. We respectively submit that if the Government can use the powers to which we have referred, in dealing with property which has inherent rights, the argument is infinitely stronger when applied to a commodity which has no inherent right to exist at all, even in times of peace. The United States Supreme Court said, 137 U. S., 86: The statistics of every State show a greater amount of misery and crime attributed to these retail liquor shops than to any other source. 66287-18- -8 |