(President to the United States Brewers' Convention, at Cleveland, November 21, 1916, which was formally endorsed by that body as an expression of its policies and purposes)

Since our last convention prohibition elections have been held in eight States. The "wets" won by large majorities in California, Maryland, Missouri and Vermont. The "drys" won in Michigan, Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota.

It is not worth while spending any time in holding post-mortems over these elections, unless it be for the purpose of guiding our judgment as to the future. We know that logically we are on the side of temperance and that we ought to be leaders in the true temperance crusade. We have plenty of evidence that the thoughtful men and women of the country are not opposed to the reasonable use of beer, and we believe that the people are willing to meet us half way in establishing conditions that will promote the welfare of the community.

The first and most important thing is to put the facts before the people-all the facts; the facts about beer, about the way in which it is made, and how it is regarded in other countries; the discrimination in favor of light beers in those countries where the anti-alcohol sentiment is the strongest. Under our system of government, excise legislation and the administration of licensing laws are local functions, and it would be futile to try to get uniform legislation on the subject. Undoubtedly there is a real demand on the part of the large centers of population for the right of self-government, which will give local bodies the opportunity for the fullest exercise of initiative and discretion in shaping and administering their regulations of the traffic. Some communities are satisfied with existing conditions, while others insist upon changes which will revolutionize the entire business. We as brewers must not only put ourselves abreast of public sentiment, but must be willing to lead it wherever

the conditions are such as to make our action of practical value. The main thing is to establish our good faith with the public, by our attitude and our willingness to co-operate in all measures of practical reform. There has been such a vast improvement in saloon conditions that the great majority of them are now decent and law-abiding, but the traditions of the past have given the opposition to the saloon an impetus which is difficult to overcome. It cannot be denied moreover, that over-competition has accentuated the opposition, even where the letter of the law is observed. There are a number of cities which still have many more saloons than are needed for the convenience of the public, and the brewer cannot escape his share of responsibility for this over-stimulation of the retail trade. I mention this because it is futile for us to undertake a publicity campaign unless we are sure that the rank and file of our members have the right mental attitude of progress in methods of distributing our product, and are willing and ready to accept the sacrifices that this may involve.

Assuming that you are in accord with me in these statements, and that you will ratify them in a resolution of approval, let us consider the situation from the national standpoint.

The prohibitionists assume that all of the people in the dry States are opposed to the license system, and they make the extravagant claim that the majority of the people have already registered their approval of the prohibition principle. The record of the vote of the seventeen States that have voted for prohibition gives a total majority of 394,000 for it, while the thirteen States that have voted it down, gave a total majority of 652,000 against it-or a net difference of 258,000 in opposition to prohibitory laws. In this connection it may be mentioned that our opponents have misrepresented the facts in regard to the recent elections in Canada. In adopting prohibition, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and other Provinces have not extinguished the breweries, but have specifically provided that the brewers may continue to make light beers for sale to the individual con

sumer.

An analysis of the vote in the States wherein prohibitory laws have been adopted, demonstrates the prominent fact that the cities located in those States have voted by a considerable majority in

favor of the licensed traffic, but have been over-ruled by the large rural vote; forcing upon the cities the wishes or desires of the rural population outside of their limits.

The agitation for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for National Prohibition will undoubtedly be pressed with renewed vigor. The interest of the government in this question is very great since the adoption of national prohibition would deprive the Federal Government of more than one-third of its entire revenue. The magnitude of the fiscal problem can be sensed when one realizes that to make up this deficit it would be necessary to multiply the new corporation income tax by five, or the individual income tax by four, or double our customs duties, and this is assuming that there will be no material increase in our national expendi

tures.

The enactment of national prohibition would, of course, wipe out the revenue of the States and municipalities from license fees, which in 1916 was estimated at a total of one hundred and ten million dollars, which does not take into account the tax receipts on the real estate and other property involved. In the State of New York, for example, the total receipts from the retail liquor licenses amount to over twenty-two million dollars, of which approximately ten million dollars go direct to the State. This is about one-fourth of the total receipts in New York State from all sources.

THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The issue is of momentous importance from other aspects than that of public finance. The ruin and waste which national prohibition would bring to all of those who are directly or indirectly dependent upon the liquor industry, involve a question of economic disturbance that would be nation wide. It is estimated that the capital invested in the liquor industry, which includes brewing, distilling, wine-making and malting, and the fixtures and furnishings for the retail trade amounts to the enormous sum of one billion, three hundred million dollars, and the total annual disbursements in all branches of the industry for materials, transportation and wages, reached the amazing total of seven hundred million dollars. This

represents the sum of the money values involved in national prohibition. These bare figures yield totals that baffle ordinary comprehension. The disbursements for materials, taxes, rents, supplies, wages, etc., directly support millions of inhabitants, and constitute large items in agriculture, general manufacture, transportation and real estate.

CONFISCATION OR COMPENSATION

All other civilized countries have recognized the immorality of destroying property values that from time immemorial have been protected by law, and by which governments-local, state and national-have been so largely maintained. The Federal government cannot fairly evade its responsibility for this enormous destruction of property values by passing it on to the States. If the principle of honest compensation cannot be ignored, the remedy must be provided by the Federal Government.

THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF NATIONAL PROHIBITION

It is urged by advocates of prohibition that no price is too great for the government to pay, if it can, by its action, overcome the drink evil. The question is whether the destruction of the liquor industry would bring us nearer to the real object, which is the cessation of intemperance. The immediate effect of national prohibition would be the wiping out of beer as a beverage, and, if human experience is any guide, this would be followed by the rapid development of home distillation of spirits. It is conceded that the law cannot prohibit man from making his own spirits for his home consumption. The process is cheap and simple, and the materials can be readily obtained in many sections of the country. In other countries, such as Sweden and France where home distillation has developed, the drink evil has been driven into the homes with most deplorable results.

ENFORCEMENT

The burden of enforcing a national prohibitory law would inevitably fall upon the State or local authorities, unless it is pro