on the right of a publisher of a newspaper or of a magazine to solicit and publish whatever advertising he deems advisable in the conduct of his newspaper?

Above and beyond these contentions, the people of this country by ballot have repudiated the very efforts of the proponents of this bill to secure prohibition, and this bill is indirectly nothing but an effort on the part of the dry forces of this country to put again upon the statute books a law that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of this country.

We would request the committee that we be given the right to submit a written brief within the next 10 days further extending our remarks. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Arthur P. Gildea, executive secretary of the Massachusetts State Council of Brewery Workers.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR P. GILDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MASSACHUSETTS STATE COUNCIL OF BREWERY WORKERS, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. GILDEA. My name is Arthur P. Gildea, and I am executive secretary of the Massachusetts State Council of Brewery Workers. I appear before you in protest to a report of any kind resulting from your committee's study of Senate bill S. 265.

I, as a citizen from New England representing thousands directly and many more thousands indirectly, appeal to the common sense and judgment that your committee will render on this sweeping prohibition petition of Hon. Senator Capper.

If such a bill were to be enacted into law, what would be the result?

Your committee would be victimized by hundreds of various groups and organizations who could make appeals against the advertising of smoking for pleasure, driving a car for pleasure, riding an airplane, trains, et cetera, for pleasure, when they could very well point out that the pleasure derived from seeking enjoyment of this nature has resulted in fatalities of enormous numbers.

What would happen to the women of today, young and old, if the advertising of cosmetic companies were opposed. I am referring to glorified advertisements relating how beautiful a woman can be made by using so and so's alluring lipstick, last word in rouge, aromatic powder or perfume that is advertised to send you where I don't know-unless it is meant that when women of today fall for such advertisements, even though they have the advantage of looking in a mirror to find out that they have made no improvements, they have invoked in themselves an air of self-confidence that they have that something which will seduce mankind of today.

Such arguments may sound ridiculous-yes; and I admit they may be ridiculous, but no more senseless than arguments sponsored by proponents of the bill S. 265 before your committee.

It is an appalling fact to find that representatives of so many church denominations would appear here and publicly confess that they are powerless to teach their followers right from wrong without calling on our democratic Government for assistance to make theirs an easier job through prohibition.

We want the privilege to drink moderately. We, through our organizations in the brewing industry, advocate moderation. But we feel that the public has the right to learn of the qualities of certain products of our industry. We have been successful, through advertising, of learning what is right and best for us to drink. Through advertising many inferior products have been frozen off the markets and with continued advertising the present cycle of production of inferior products will be wiped out entirely.

I ask you gentlemen of the committee to give us a chance. We are in our infancy, as far as our industry is concerned, and the years spent by our boys and girls who fought valiantly over the battlefields of foreign soil to preserve a democracy in America should not be forgotten in such a hurry.

We would forget because through enactment into law of such a bill, thousands of veterans would be thrown out of work by such a back-door prohibition move.

Let it not be said that your honorable committee were part and parcel of any move to restrict any of the freedoms we now enjoy. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, that is our committee of brewery workers.

I would now like to take a few minutes.

I have a few summaries here, and information, which I would like to give out, unless there are some other opponents of the bill who would like to go on first.

Senator REED. If there are any others who wish to speak in opposition, we will hear them first, Mr. Brady.

STATEMENT OF FRANK BRAUCHER, PRESIDENT, MAGAZINE ADVERTISING BUREAU, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. BRAUCHER. Mr. Chairman; my name is Frank Braucher. I am the president of the Magazine Advertising Bureau, 271 Madison Avenue, New York City, which is an association of national magazine publishers, whose object is to promote with national advertisers, the use of magazine advertising for the sale of goods and services of all types.

The magazines they publish include practically all of the leading national magazines in the United States.

Of these 17 publishers who are members of the Magazine Advertising Bureau, 12 of them accept beer, wine, and liquor advertising. Last year, the volume of this advertising carried by these 12 publishers in their 23 magazines, expressed in dollars, amounted to $22,315,210.

I am here as a representative of these 12 publishers in opposition to S. 265 known as the Capper bill. My opposition is on the very sound ground that alcoholic beverages of all types have been determined to be commodities recognized as lawful by the statutes of the United States and a vast majority of the separate States.

The question of whether trade in alcoholic beverages is lawful and proper has been debated thoroughly by three generations. Numberless State laws, municipal ordinances, and Federal statutes have been enacted; two amendments to the Federal Constitution have been written into our fundamental legal structure.

As everyone knows, the eighteenth amendment outlawed the traffic in alcoholic beverages and the twenty-first amendment_repealed the eighteenth amendment. Consequently, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a tremendous majority of the American people have deliberately voted approval of the trade in alcoholic beverages. Since the seal of approval had been deliberately given the sale and interstate trade in alcoholic beverages, after due consideration and through regular constitutional channels, no prejudice can rightly be attached to the advertising, in interstate commerce, of alcoholic beverages. We believe it would represent a dangerous public policy, and set an unthinkable precedent, for the Congress to enact any law that differentiated between the advertising of one class of legitimate product as against another.

To enact a special statute forbidding the advertising of alcoholic beverages would in effect be a violation of the express will of the very great majority of the American people as recorded in the votes on the twenty-first amendment which went into effect on December 5, 1933.

In the magazine publishing industry, the same considerations that control advertising of other commodities and services in common supply and demand, apply with equal force to liquor advertising. These considerations are that the product or service advertised must not conflict with the law, and that the advertising be honest and in good taste. It could not be any other way.

Since national magazines are not common carriers, but operate solely as private enterprises, each publisher has the right to determine what class and character of advertising he will carry. Some publishers do not choose to carry liquor advertising, but in exercising their prerogatives in this respect, their action can in no way be construed as a reflection on those publishers who do choose to carry liquor advertising.

A number of years ago, the national magazine publishers whom I represent devised a set of standards for the protection of their columns against advertising that might be considered fraudulent, destructively competitive, or in bad taste. These standards apply to every classification of advertising including liquor advertising. But in the case of liquor advertising there are additional restrictions.

This advertising is very rigidly regulated by a set of rules propounded by the Alcoholic Tax Unit of the Internal Revenue Department of the United States Treasury. These regulations deal with the subject of alcoholic beverages on a broad national basis, and may be compared in general with similar regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission and other governmental organizations regarding other products. They deal principally with statements in the interest of accuracy, and with the prohibition of statements involving inaccuracy or falsehood.

There is one other aspect of liquor advertising in magazines which might seem speculative but which, nevertheless, has enough substance to merit consideration.

When a brewer, vintner, or distiller advertises his brand or brands, he assumes public responsibility for his product-its character and its quality. In other words, he places himself in a position where all can see and judge. If this were not so, is there not the possibility that we

would revert to the condition which prevailed during the prohibition period, when pirating and counterfeiting of labels was common practice?

When unscrupulous distributors of alcoholic beverages, who would not dare identify themselves as do the liquor advertisers today, might come on the market with inferior and deleterious products? Thus the national advertising of liquors, as it is practiced today, might well be considered a public safeguard against inferior and harmful products. National magazine publishers are of course very sensitive to reactions that come to them through the medium of letters from readers. Needless to say, they are particularly interested in those classified as complaint letters. As nearly as we can check, the number of letters complaining about liquor advertising compared to circulations is almost infinitesimal.

In the year 1946, the 23 national magazines which carried liquor advertising received a total of 10,043 complaint letters out of a total circulation of 32,018,395, which amounts to thirty-three one-thousandths of 1 percent. And of these letters, it is estimated that between 80 and 90 percent were not spontaneous, but the result of organized activities of various groups.

Many of the senders of these communications did not bother to write. They used the device of pasting on a liquor advertisement a sticker reading "I do not like this ad in my paper." Others just filled in mimeographed forms.

Considering the diversity of magazine readers and of the magazines in which liquor advertising appears, plus the diversity of a publisher's mail, it cannot be said by the widest stretch of the imagination that we have anything which even remotely resembles a general public reaction against liquor advertising in national magazines.

In conclusion, I should like to summarize these points as the basis for our opposition to S. 265.

1. Since trade in alcoholic beverages is legalized by constitutional amendment, no prejudice can rightly be attached to their advertising in interstate commerce.

2. A dangerous precedent would be set for the Congress to differentiate between the advertising of one class of legitimate product as against another.

3. Advertising of alcoholic beverages in national magazines must measure up to rigid standards which exclude advertising that is dishonest or in bad taste; in addition, regulations of the Federal Alcoholic Tax Unit serve as a further safeguard.

4. The national advertising of alcoholic beverages may be regarded as a positive protection of the consumer against unscrupulous distributors who might otherwise be able to purvey inferior and deleterious products.

5. The number of letters received by national magazines from their readers complaining about advertising of alcoholic beverages is almost infinitesimal, measured against the circulation or readership of these magazines. Thank you very much.

Senator REED. Are there any other witnesses present who desire to appear?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. HUDGINS, REPRESENTING THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO., RICHMOND, VA.

Mr. HUDGINS. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: I am Edward M. Hudgins, of Richmond, Va. I represent the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

I desire to express opposition to Senate bill 265 designed, among other things, "to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of advertisements of alcoholic beverages."

First I would like to point out the financial interest of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway.

During January and February 1947, we handled the following tonnages of the commodities involved, with the number of cars and revenue as shown:

Based on the above, our revenue from such traffic for the year would be approximately a million dollars.

The advertisements themselves are handled principally by the Railway Express Agency, Inc. Revenues from magazines, periodicals, and books, classified as third class in 1946, amounted to $4,426,452. Revenues from newspapers amounted to $3,167,553. The Chesapeake & Ohio, of course, receives only its proportionate part of the grand total of $7,594,005.

It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the effect the passage of bill 265 would have on the above revenues of the Chesapeake & Ohio. These would undoubtedly be considerably reduced.

Our real objection, however, is the difficulty involved in avoiding criminal responsibility. I am referring now to common-carrier responsibility as it affects the railroads.

While section 3, which pertains to common carriers, will undoubtedly be interpreted in the light of section 7, which provides for the penalty of "any person knowingly violating any of the provisions of the act," et cetera, the practical difficulties of enforcing such a provision are not inconsequential.

The railroads as common carriers must, as your committee well knows, transport all goods that are offered to them for transportation, provided, of course, that such goods may be lawfully transported. The railroads can tell the nature of the commodity prior to accepting it for transportation because various commodities carry different rates and the shipper must designate the nature of the commodity in order to properly classify the goods for transportation.

It would be very difficult for the railroads to determine whether or not magazines, et cetera, contained such advertisements prior to accepting them for transportation.

Senator REED. Mr. Hudgins, what is your official connection with the Chesapeake & Ohio Co. ?