Page images


The free seat in the United States Brewers' Academy (Anton Schwartz, founder) for the term 1914-15, has been awarded to Mr. Frederick Spreemann of New York City.

[ocr errors]

REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Advisory Committee has been kept busy continually in advising our members regarding their labels under the Federal Food and Drugs Act, and the Net Weight Amendment thereto.

We have tried to make our members realize that if the intent of the law is kept carefully in mind, its provisions can be interpreted by any layman from the standpoint of common sense. The whole object of pure food legislation, and of laws regulating weights and measures is to give the public a square deal. This means that there shall be no misrepresentation of goods by word or device, and that the purchaser shall know the quantity that he is entitled to, when he makes his purchase.

The purpose of the label is to inform the purchaser just what, and how much he is buying, in as plain and simple a manner as possible, so that there can be no mistaking its meaning.

We have received the most patient and courteous consideration from the Bureau of Chemistry, and the Committee on Regulations of the Net Weight Law in the numerous inquiries that we have addressed to them, and have endeavored, for our part, to give them helpful co-operation. Your Advisory Committee believes that the members of this Association have been materially benefited by this co-operation and that it has resulted in enabling them to avoid any action that might bring them in conflict with the Department.

The ablest administrators in the public service recognize and appreciate the importance and value of organized co-operation by representative civic and trade bodies. The Health Commissioner of New York has gone so far as to organize an Advisory Council of representatives of various trades, professions, occupations and civic and public welfare organizations, who are divided into working committees and thus bring to the support of the Department of Health a body of volunteers whose practical assistance is most valuable. The secretary of our Advisory Committee has been appointed a member of this Council and of its committee on Food Inspection.


The State of Louisiana has the distinction of being the first State to pass a law legalizing the sale of beer containing not more than 2 per cent of alcohol in dry territory. The Act provides that the packages must be labeled with the maximum quantity of alcohol in volume, and that no other beverage may be sold under the same roof.

In Great Britain and Ireland the Government defines beer as a liquor, which on analysis, shall be found to contain more than 2 per cent. of proof spirit.

The Norwegian Parliament has established by law a progressive class system for alcohol under which beers containing a maximum of 274 per cent. of alcohol are taxed only at the rate of 2 oere per litre, which is equivalent to 127/2 cents per barrel of 31 gallons.

In Sweden beers which contain less than 274 per cent. by volume of alcohol are taxed at the rate of 25 cents per barrel, while in Denmark similar beers are entirely tax free.

The United States, however, taxes at the full rate, all beverages which contain as much as 1/2 of 1 per cent. of alcohol, and will not permit the manufacture of untaxable beverages on the premises of a brewery which produces taxable fermented liquors.

The Bureau of Chemistry, which is charged with the enforcement of the Federal Food and Drugs Act, considers that it is misbranding to label a beer which pays a tax to the Government as a temperance beer.

The vindictiveness of the Prohibition Party is best shown by the fact that a number of states forbid the sale of any malt beverage, even if it is absolutely non-alcoholic, while in a number of states the sale of such non-alcoholic beverages in dry districts has been stopped by decisions of the court.

In Georgia the retail sale of near beer, for consumption on the premises, has been provided for specifically, and such retail dealers are licensed and taxed by the State. The Court of Appeals of Georgia has decided that “to establish the claim that any soft drink now sold is violative of the law, it will be necessary to affirmatively prove that it will, if drunk to excess, produce intoxication."

In Texas, however, the Court of Civil Appeals holds that "A place in prohibition territory where non-intoxicating malt liquors, requiring a Federal license, are kept for sale, is a disorderly house."

The lack of uniformity in the laws of the different states is most confusing, and it is evident that there is a great need of the establishment of a definite principle of action. Logically, it would seem wise and proper for the Federal Government to make a discrimination in favor of beers which do not contain over 2 per cent. of alcohol by volume. If such a distinction were made by the Federal Government, it would probably be followed by the legislatures of the various states in a short time.


It is difficult to indicate the general trend of the legislation of the past year on the liquor question, for the reason that it is so largely a local matter. In the main, however, the results are not unfavorable. The legislatures of Maryland and Kentucky rejected State-wide prohibition bills, while in Texas the prohibitionists were defeated by a large majority in the primaries. In Maine, Governor Haines ran for re-election on the prohibition issue, and was defeated by Governor-Elect Curtis, and it is generally conceded that the election showed a decided change in front on the part of the voters.

The fire of the prohibitionists is directed against those who manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages under sanction of the law. Their efforts to prevent the consumption of liquors are directed towards making it as difficult or inconvenient as possible for the individual to obtain liquors, except in disreputable dives or else for home consumption.

The new Virginia Law which will go into effect in November, 1916, prohibits distilling, but will permit wine and beer to be made for shipment beyond the borders of the State.

In the South the question is largely a racial one. People who can afford it, may have all the liquors they want shipped to them as individuals, and in the cities, the negroes and the poor whites patronize the illicit resorts. As a rule the country places in the Southern States were dry already, under local option laws, so that their condition is neither benefited nor changed by the advent of State-wide prohibition. The express companies and mailorder houses are profiting by the situation. For example, the small town of Greensboro, N. C., with a population of about 16,000 received 5,270 gallons of spirits during the month of December, 1913, alone.

In Alabama a local option Governor was elected, and Congressman Hobson was defeated in the primaries for United States Senator on the prohibition issue by a large majority.

Louisiana passed a law permitting the sale of near beer in dry territory.

In the Northern States the Anti-Saloon League is constantly playing politics, and wherever a disorderly saloon is found it is dramatized and capitalized for the purpose of arousing sentiment against all saloons. The organized liquor trade, both wholesale and retail, is bending its energies towards law enforcement and the strictest regulation, but it gets no encouragement or support from any of the so-called temperance organizations.

In Pennsylvania the Supreme Court has decided that the Brooks High License Law gives the judges of the License Court absolute discretion in the licensing of saloons. If, therefore, a judge is elected as a prohibitionist, he can make the country dry by simply refusing all licenses.

In Idaho the Supreme Court ruled that a saloon is not a nuisance, since it is authorized by law, and that it cannot become a nuisance so long as it is conducted in accordance with the law.

In South Dakota the elections this year resulted in 92 cities and towns voting against prohibition, and 62 voting in favor of prohibition.

The Minnesota elections resulted in 446 towns being wet, and 291 dry, being a decrease of 29 wet towns over the preceding year. However, the Northern part of Minnesota has been declared dry by the United States Supreme Court under the old Indian Treaty, by which the presence of some 7,000 Indians affects the property interests of 272,000 white people.

Michigan now has 34 dry counties, and 40 wet, being an increase of one dry county.

In New York State, in 1914, the result of the township elections showed 385 full license towns, 146 partial license towns, and 402 no-license towns; showing an increase of 10 full license towns; and a decrease of 2 partial license towns and 8 no-license towns over the 1913 elections.

The Ohio license code went into full operation in November,


The limitation clause of one saloon to each 500 population proved a source of much disturbance, but the trade has now recovered its poise, and it is felt that much good is being derived from the general operation of the license law.

The Allison Law of Texas, in Section 6, permits liquor advertisements in newspapers which have a circulation in both wet and dry territories.

The material points of the Transportation Law of Tennessee, affecting orders from that State to dealers in other States, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the State, thus allowing the purchase of any quantity desired for personal use.

The Webb-Kenyon Act has been declared constitutional in every State in which it has been made an issue.


California defeated State-wide prohibition by a majority of 191,800 votes. A referendum amendment prohibiting another vote on the question within eight years was lost.

Ohio. In Ohio prohibition was defeated by 84,512 majority, and the Home Rule Amendment was carried by 12,567 majority. The Home Rule Amendment annuls the county option law and makes it impossible to enact State prohibition by statute. The result of this election will be to make the municipalities and township areas outside municipalities the unit in voting upon the license question.

Arizona voted for prohibition by a small majority. The law takes effect on January 1, 1915.

Colorado voted for prohibition also by a small majority, but the Act fails to provide a penalty for violation, and is otherwise so faulty that it may lead to a contest in the courts. It goes into effect January 1, 1916.

Washington voted for prohibition by about 14,000 majority. Effective January 1, 1916.

Oregon voted for prohibition by about 20,000 majority. Effective January 1, 1916.

[ocr errors]

Alabama:—Since the last report one county in the State has voted dry making sixteen counties in the State having held local

« PreviousContinue »