effects. Wherever the practice has been adopted, the saving is quickly apparent. The distributor and the consumer are coming more and more to recognize the soundness and reasonableness of the practice, and are less and less inclined to object. The committee has impressive figures of the saving that is effected by the system of charging for bottles, which it will be very glad to furnish to any brewer or set of brewers who desire some further light on this question. DRUGS The United States Supreme Court has handed down an interpretation of the clause of the Harrison Federal Drug Act of 1914, making it unlawful for any person not registered under the law to have opium in his possession, ruling that this applies only to those who deal in the drug and not to those who use it. In announcing the opinion Mr. Justice Holmes said that "only words from which there is no escape could warrant the conclusion that Congress meant to strain its powers almost, if not quite, to the breaking point in order to make the probably very large proportion of citizens who have some preparation of opium in their possession criminal." If we substitute for the word "opium" the words "intoxicating liquors," it will be seen that the possession of the latter article by private individuals should be protected, and only liquor in the hands of dealers should be affected by the laws of the various States regarding the matter. This new decision seemingly establishes an important precedent. COCA COLA The United States Supreme Court has decided against contentions of the Coca Cola Company of Atlanta, Ga., holding that caffeine introduced into a syrup during the second or third malting is an "added" ingredient within the meaning of the Federal Food and Drug Act of 1906, condemning as adulterated any article of food that contains "any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health," although it is called for as a constituent by the secret formula under which the syrup is compounded. The name Coca Cola cannot be said as a matter of law to be distinctive rather than descriptive of a compound with coca cola ingredients so as to escape condemnation, under the Food and Drugs Act, as misbranded in case of the absence of either coca or cola. This case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CANADA'S BRAND OF PROHIBITION Under the guise of war measures prohibition laws have lately been forced upon almost all of Canada, the Province of Quebec being the notable exception. It is to be noted, however, that prohibition in Canada is a very different thing from prohibition in the United States, where any beverage containing one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol is sought to be put under the ban. A number of States even go to the extent of forbidding all malt beverages of whatsoever description. The law of Ontario may be taken as a sample of the Canadian system. The act does not touch any liquor containing less than 22 per cent proof spirits, equal to 1.43 per cent of alcohol by volume, or 1.13 per cent by weight. Such beverages may be manufactured anywhere and sold even without the payment of special license fees. Beer having the usual percentage of alcohol, may be manufactured in the Province for export, and may be imported for personal use and consumption. Ontario's law also contains a special concession to the wine growers of the Province, though their product at times runs as high in alcohol as 23 per cent by proof. Manitoba's standard of alcoholic content is the same as that of Ontario. Saskatchewan prohibits beverages containing more than I per cent by weight. New Brunswick, where the law will come into effect May 1, 1917, fixes its standard at 2 per cent by weight. It is apparent that a market can be found in Canada for beers having a low percentage of alcohol. THE EUROPEAN SITUATION There has been little change during the year in the situation in the European countries, the tendency among the warring nations and those at peace as well, being to place severe restrictions around the sale of ardent spirits, and to encourage the use of beers and light wines by discriminatory taxation. In Russia, which has been loudly proclaimed as a prohibition country because of the ban on vodka and other strong liquors, the Duma recently adopted a measure intended to give the popular approval to the Czar's prohibition rescript or decree. It is significant that this measure expressly exempted beverages containing under 12 per cent of alcohol from the operations of the prohibitory system. In France, legislation which has affected liquor bears a fiscal aspect entirely. While very light taxes are imposed upon the native wines and beers, the tax on spirituous liquors has been quite heavily increased, and household distillation will bear its share of these burdens. The Central Control Board (Liquor) of Great Britain has from time to time increased the area of its operations, and as a consequence has taken over a large number of public houses during the year. While some of the board's measures have evoked strong protest from the retail trade and the manufacturers as well, there seems to be no substantial basis for believing that it is working toward prohibition in any form. The board has in its activities encouraged the use of the lighter alcoholics as against the strong liquors. Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain continue to serve liquor rations to their soldiers. In France the wine ration has recently been increased. Respectfully submitted. JAMES R. NICHOLSON, Chairman. WILLIAM HOFFMANN, LOUIS B. SCHRAM, N. W. KENDALL, HUGH F. Fox, Secretary. A CORRECTION In the Year Book of the United States Brewers' Association for 1915, a brief reference was made to the eighth annual meeting of the Association of Life Insurance Presidents held in New York on December 10-11, 1914. Through an unfortunate error Mr. Arthur Hunter was represented as having made, at this meeting, certain statements that he actually did not make, in the course of an address upon the subject, "Can Insurance Experience Be Applied to Lengthen Life?" This error arose through a confusion of comments made by another person upon Mr. Hunter's paper, with the actual statements of that gentleman. It is a matter of keen regret that Mr. Hunter was misrepresented, in any degree, in the pages of the Year Book, and this correction is offered in the hope that any false impression which may have been created through the mistake may be removed. It is the aim and desire to have the Year Book contain only fact and reasonable deduction therefrom and comment thereupon. THE YEAR IN EUROPE The chief European developments with regard to liquor, during the year 1916, will be found in the appended summary: GREAT BRITAIN While the operations of the Board of Control (Liquor) were watched with great interest throughout the year, the chief development was the prospect of the complete Nationalization, by purchase, of the entire trade in alcoholic beverages. Although it is generally agreed that such a step would involve the payment of from £200,000,000 to £250,000,000 (roughly equivalent to $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000) the movement had the support of many influential organizations, including the Church of England Temperance Society, and it is known that some of the strongest men in the present Government favor it. In fact, it is believed. that the Government is committed to the proposition though the details have not yet been worked out for formulation in a Parliamentary bill. The payment for breweries and distilleries would be, it may be presumed, on the basis of the average value of the stock of such corporations, for the three years prior to the war. This is the standard heretofore employed. Where such a basis does not exist, appraisals would fix values. The money would probably be raised by debenture bonds. The present disposition does not seem to be that the various establishments shall be operated for a profit sufficient to meet the cost of the undertaking, but that they shall be run simply in response to the public need. Of course many distilling plants could be utilized for the production of alcohol for munition purposes at present and for denatured alcohol after the war. The operations of the Board of Control have prepared the public for what otherwise would be regarded as a most revolutionary proceeding. The Board has taken over hundreds of public |