tially dry; that is, that accept no advertisements of liquor, wine or beer or accept them only in part, with the following results:

Daily newspapers: There are in the United States 201 daily newspapers that are totally dry-dry on liquor, wine, and beer; 127 daily papers that are dry on liquor and wine; 171 daily papers that are dry on liquor only, making a total of 499 daily papers that are dry on liquor.

Weekly newspapers: There are in the United States 2,086 weekly newspapers that are totally dry; 896 weekly newspapers that are dry on liquor and wine; 534 weekly newspapers that are dry on liquor only, making a total of 3,516 that are dry on liquor.

Adding the 201 totally dry daily newspapers and the 2,086 totally dry weekly newspapers gives a total of 2,287 totally dry newspapers. Adding the 127 daily newspapers dry on liquor and wine and the 896 weekly newspapers dry on liquor and wine gives a total of 1,023 newspapers dry on liquor and wine. Adding the 171 daily newspapers dry on liquor only and the 534 weekly newspapers dry on liquor only gives a total of 705 dry on liquor only. Adding the 499 daily newspapers dry on liquor and the 3,516 weekly papers dry on liquor gives a total of 4,015 papers dry on liquor.

We submit the above testimony; first, to disprove the widely held opinion that nearly all the newspapers of America are wet and a very few dry.

This study shows almost 25 percent of the 8,428 weekly newspapers published in the United States are totally dry and over 41 percent of them are dry on liquor. While the percentage of dry dailys would be less than the above, they are still a very considerable number and some of them have a very large circulation.

Second, to prove that there is a wide and strong public sentiment in this country against alcoholic-beverage advertising and the traffic in intoxicating liquors which it is intended to promote.

Why do so many newspaper editors and publishers refuse alcoholic-beverage advertisements? Most of them, we believe, on the basis of principle. They are opposed to the traffic and will have nothing to do with promoting it by advertising its products. Others may refuse because many of their subscribers are against the liquor business and on this account refuse advertising it.

In either case this shows how widespread and strong is the public sentiment against liquor advertising and the traffic it is designed to promote.

This also should be considered; many of these dry papers are sustaining a heavy financial loss by refusing alcoholic-beverage advertisements. The distillers and brewers are spending over one quarter of a billion dollars a year in advertising their products over all the mediums they employ, and $77 million in newspaper advertising for the year of 1955. They could obtain a revenue of many millions by opening their column to liquor advertising. Not withstanding the mounting cost of paper and printing they are holding steady against the temptation.

Thus also we request your committee to take under consideration in appraising the strength of the public sentiment against liquor advertising and the liquor traffic.

What we have said with reference to dry newspapers could also be said with reference to dry magazines. However, this is another story and we will leave it to other witnesses.

We urge a favorable report of this bill.

NOTES

Authorities for the above:

For daily newspapers: "Newspaper Section of Standard Rate and Data Service," November 1955.

For weekly newspapers: "Weekly Newspaper Representatives, Inc." 35th National Directory, 1955.

Weekly newspapers include semi- and tri-weekly papers as well as those published once a week.

With reference both to the number of newspapers and their advertising of alcoholic beverages there are constant changes. Some newspapers merge, others are discontinued, some papers change from wet to dry and others vice-versa.

(Whereupon, at 5:30 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, February 17, 1956.)

ADVERTISING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, Hon. J. Percy Priest (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order:

We are continuing hearings today on H. R. 4627, a bill to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of advertisements of alcoholic beverages, and for other purposes.

On yesterday the committee heard the proponents of the legislation. Under our schedule, today was set aside for hearing those in opposition to the legislation.

The witness order may have to be varied somewhat because it is the understanding of the Chair that a number of those who intended to testify early this morning may still be on the Senate side awaiting their call there.

Is Mr. Joyce, vice president of Distilled Spirits Institute, present? STATEMENT OF R. E. JOYCE, VICE PRESIDENT, DISTILLED SPIRITS INSTITUTE, INC., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. JOYCE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Joyce, the committee will be glad to hear you at this time.

May the Chair make the same request as was made yesterday that where there may be long manuscripts to be read, if the witness can summarize with the understanding that all of the statement will be included in the record, it will be most helpful.

You may proceed, Mr. Joyce.

Mr. JOYCE. My name is R. E. Joyce. I am vice president of the Distilled Spirits Institute, a national trade association of beverage distillers.

I am likewise speaking for the licensed beverage industry and the Association of Maryland Distillers, who in the interest of conserving the committee's time, have asked me to speak for them, and they will not make a presentation.

The institute members, together with others for whom we speak, account for over 90 percent of the beverage spirits legally sold in the United States. The institute is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 4627 and its board of directors has authorized this statement.

H. R. 4627 would prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce-including radio and television broadcasts of all advertise

229

ments of alcoholic beverages. Practically all newspapers and magazines are distributed in interstate commerce and would therefore be prohibited from carrying alcoholic beverage advertising. In effect, the bill would prohibit all advertising of alcoholic beverages except billboards and hand circulars distributed within a State.

Since 1947 six different congressional committees have studied similar or identical bills and in each instance rejected the legislation. The institute has offered testimony at each of the earlier hearings and appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today to register our objections to this bill.

WHAT THE BILL REALLY IS

Over the past 9 years this legislation has been urged upon Congress by a minority group which has made it quite clear to the Congress that its aim is to "hamper and hinder" the lawful trade in alcoholic beverages with the eventual objective of achieving a return to national prohibition. Approval of this bill would be a long step toward the accomplishment of that objective.

If there is any doubt as to the intentions of the advocates of this bill, I strongly urge a reading of the past hearings on this legislation as well as the so-called temperance publications. The Union Signal, official publication of the WCTU, has termed the legislation as "first and foremost" in the organization's 1956 legislative program. Bishop Hammaker has stated that it is a means to hinder and hamper the legitimate industry in the sale of its products. Official publications and spokesmen for the dry forces have over the past months been urging their members to flood this committee with letters, postal cards, and petitions urging the enactment of the legislation.

We ask the committee to consider the bill for what it really is-a prohibition measure-a matter settled by a constitutional amendment more than 22 years ago.

The memory of man is short. Without advertising and the opportunity to create brand preference for the legitimate product, the sale of today's well-known products would suffer a sharp reduction. This is not to say that liquor would disappear from America. Not even 14 years of prohibition brought that about.

There would be no reduction in overall consumption of liquor, should the bill pass. There would, however, be a further shift of consumption from the legitimate tax-paid product to the moonshine product, and we would substitute a degraded system of distribution of questionable and bootleg products for the well-regulated manufacture and distribution of reputable products. The moonshiner, who is a national problem today, should not be given further aid and encouragement through legislation of this type.

Advertising, gentlemen, is not the real subject before you. It is whether or not we will continue to have a lawful and law-abiding alcoholic beverage industry free to display and sell its wares, or whether we will destroy this industry and leave the way open for those minority groups to once again shove national prohibition down the throats of the American people.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt the witness, but I cannot hear him. If a witness is testifying and the members cannot hear him, I do not know what will be accomplished.

RADIO AND TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Mr. JOYCE. At the outset it should be pointed out that much of the proponent's testimony consists of complaints about radio and television broadcasts of alcoholic beverage advertising. These complaints are not directed at the distilled-spirits industry because that industry does not use the radio and television media to advertise its products. As far back as 1936 the members of the Distilled Spirits Institute voluntarily agreed to abstain from using radio as a means of advertising their products. This action was taken in the interest of good public opinion. After World War II when television came on the scene, the voluntary ban was extended to television. I should add that substantially all members of the industry, both members and nonmembers of our institute, have followed this voluntary action. Further and we would like to emphasize this in each of these cases the action was taken by the distilled spirits industry years before the radio and television broadcasters decided they should not accept beverage spirits advertising.

We have pursued our own course of action in respect to this solely as a matter of decent respect for the sensibilities of those opposed to the use of our products.

Nevertheless, we are strongly opposed, as a matter of principle, to any Federal legislation which would select a single industry or a single article of commerce and deny it a means of advertising, such as the use of the air waves, when that avenue of advertising is open to all others. Discriminatory legislation of this type is un-American and we will fight it wherever we find it.

A DANGEROUS LEGISLATIVE PRECEDENT-CLASS LEGISLATION

This bill would create a dangerous legislative precedent. The bill proposes that Congress should deny to I article of commerce the use of interstate channels of commerce for its advertising. Over 22 years ago an overwhelming majority of the American people, acting with amazing speed, determined alcoholic beverages to be legitimate articles of commerce and, as such, entitled to the same fair treatment extended to all other commodities or services. This includes the right to present and describe the product to the public through the medium of advertising. To deny this right to the manufacturers of a single commodity would be discriminatory against that industry. This would be a new congressional policy and would establish a dangerous precedent that could well be followed by requests for similar class legislation affecting other industries, with a resulting threat to investment capital and employment of labor.

If a legislative precedent of enacting discriminatory, class legislation of this type to appease minority interests is to be established, it will only be a short time before you will be asked to pass other laws at the insistence of minority groups opposed to the use of other legitimate articles of commerce. There are minorities in the country today opposed to the use of tobacco; minorities who believe coffee is harmful to the nerves; minorities opposed to the use of medicinal products in any form, and even vegetarians opposed to the use of meat. If this bill is enacted into law, minorities such as these could be expected to press for the passage of legislation forbidding the interstate advertising of many other products.