It is believed it should be further pointed out to this committee that any matter, however objectionable, if sent under seal, is not subject to postal examination, and this condition which is, of course, directly related to the sanctity of the seal, could result in prohibited matter passing through the mails unquestioned. Thus, the effectiveness of legislation such as proposed could be only partially successful. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the presentation of this statement to the committee. Re. H. R. 4627 LITHOGRAPHERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, GENTLEMEN: Lithographers National Association, Inc., respectfully registers its opposition to the passage of House bill H. R. 4627, which prohibits certain advertising in interstate commerce of alcoholic beverages, and requests that this communication be made a part of the record of the hearings on this bill. Lithographers National Association, Inc., is a trade association of employers operating lithographic plants throughout the United States. These plants produce all forms of lithographic printing, including advertisements, posters, manuals, labels, insurance policies and many others. The members of this association are vitally interested in any legislation which restricts or prohibits advertising. Since the adoption of the 21st amendment to the Constitution the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages is as lawful an industry as any other industry in this country. The advertisement of goods which may lawfully be sold is an incident to the sale and in the absence of false and deceptive claims should be no more restricted than the sale itself. The regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages is, under our law, a matter which is now left to the control of the individual States. The advertisement of such goods for such sale should, similarly, rest within the control of the States. The effect of this bill is to prevent the advertisement in various States of the Union of products which may be lawfully sold in such States and is, we respectfully submit, an improper exercise of the power of the Congress. In fact, we might go further and suggest that it is doubtful whether the Congress of the United States has the jurisdiction which it is asked to exercise in this bill. The purpose of this bill is to prevent the transportation in interstate commerce of certain types of advertisements of alcoholic beverages. This method of attack recognizes the national character of industries in this country, the fact that many commodities are advertised nationally as well as locally, but attempts to deny to the alcoholic beverage industry the right to advertise nationally. This bill also unfairly discriminates among competing advertising media. National advertising is a legitimate function and essential part of national distribution. The proponents of the bill, failing to induce many States to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages, are now attempting indirectly to restrict such sale by inducing the Congress of the United States to restrict the national advertising of such beverages. No adequate reason is advanced in support of the bill why these matters may not be left to the control of the State legislatures which control the sale of the beverages. It is significant that the advocates of the bill come to the Congress of the United States rather than to the State legislatures. Obviously, if they had been successful in inducing all State legislatures to prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages the proponents of this measure would not have to come before the Congress. It seems equally obvious, therefore, that they are now asking the Congress of the United States to intrude into a field of State legislation and to force upon the States a kind of regulation of advertising which many of the States do not want. We believe it is appropriate to suggest that the principal support for the bill stems not from those who have in mind primarily the restriction or prohibition of the advertisement of alcoholic beverages but rather from those whose basic desire is to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. We suggest that as it is presented to the Congress this bill raises a serious question as to how far the Congress of the United States validly can, or properly should, adopt national legislation designed to override State laws and designed to deprive an industry of its constitutional right to advertise its products. In other words, the bill is to be recognized as a step in a program again to deprive the alcoholic beverage industry of its right to exist under the law. As such a step the bill seeks to induce the Congress of the United States to violate the purpose and intent of the 21st amendment of the Constitution. The theory of national regulation of advertising which this bill sponsors is a most dangerous theory if adopted by the Congress of the United States. In the present instance there is a pressure group which objects to the advertising (and presumably the sale) of alcoholic beverages. In the next instance, the Congress may meet another pressure group which desires to prohibit the advertising (and possibly the sale) of tobacco products. Other groups can build up a comparable argument in favor of the prohibition of proprietary medicines. Certainly there are some sects in this country which disapprove of the use of medicine and many physicians who disapprove of self-medication. As a matter of fact, there are probably very few commodities the advertising and sale of which are not objectionable to some group in this country. If the proposed legislation is within the power of the Congress, which is extremely doubtful, the Congress is entering an almost unlimited field of regulation of national advertising. The members of this industry are vitally concerned with advertising. A large part of their business is a service to advertisers and a high percentage of the products of this industry is advertising materials. Members of the Lithographers National Association, Inc., engaged in the lawful business of producing advertisements for alcoholic beverages naturally object to this particular bill. The association as a whole objects to the theory of congressional control of the sale and advertising of lawful commodities which would be established if this bill were adopted. The definition of alcoholic beverages as given in the bill is so broad and so vague that it may be interpreted to mean many liquids not commonly known or considered as alcoholic beverages. For example, some cough syrups, beef and wine tonics, and 3.2 percent beer presumably would be included. Furthermore, certain liquids might be excluded by definition in certain States but not in others. The section which seeks to prohibit the use of the mails in connection with letters, postcards, circulars or pamphlets "containing any advertisement of alcoholic beverages" fails to include a definition of what constitutes an advertisement and might be construed to include many references to alcoholic beverages which are not normally considered advertisements and might thus have the effect of attempting to deny to the industry the right to use the mails in connecion with any mention of its products. In view of the difficulty at times of drawing a distinction between advertising and publicity, this law might prevent the distribution by mail of many newspapers and other periodicals containing news items or other articles relating to alcoholic beverages even though they carried no-paid-space advertising. We submit that in view of the 21st amendment to the Constitution, the Congress of the United States may not, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, prohibit a form of such commerce in a lawful commodity; namely the advertisement of an alcoholic beverage, or the solicitation of an order of an alcoholic beverage. This bill does not seek to regulate that part of the commerce but rather to prohibit it. It is not our purpose, however, in this communication to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to argue all the constitutional and legal defects of this bill. The membership of this association is engaged in legitimate business supplying the lawful needs of the alcoholic beverage industry for advertising material. We submit that we have a right under the Constitution to prepare, manufacture, and deliver to customers in interstate commerce advertisements which those customers desire to purchase from us. We submit that the customers have a right to use such lithographic printing in the advertisement of their products, alcoholic beverages. We suggest that the proposal here presented can be considered properly only when, if ever, the Constitution of the United States permits the Congress to prohibit the transportation as well as the advertisement of alcoholic beverages. Respectfully submitted. W. FLOYD MAXWELL, Executive Director. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until 1:30. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 1:30 p. m., this same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The committee reconvened at 1:30 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. BRADY, CINCINNATI, OHIO, COORDINA- Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Joseph E. Brady, coordinator of State Councils of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. In order to same time and knowing that many other important witnesses on the opponent side are to be heard, I would like to have the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of submitting statements by our people for the record and they being recorded as being present, they are all here. All of them are from out of town and we don't want to take up any more time of this committee. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Will you list the statements you desire to include? Mr. BRADY. Yes. Francis Kelty, the executive secretary of the New York State Council of Brewery, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers. Paul E. Maxwell, secretary of the West Virginia Glass and Pottery Workers Protective League. William E. Brannas, Minneapolis, Minn., executive secretary of Minnesota State Council of Brewery Workers, AFL-CIO. I would like to file those three. They are not here, Mr. Chairman. (The statements referred to are as follows:) STATEMENT OF FRANCIS KELTY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL OF BREWERY, SOFT DRINK, AND DISTILLERY WORKERS, INC. Honorable chairman and members of the committee, the New York State Council of Brewery, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers have authorized me to submit to the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee this statement protesting the enactment or passage of H. R. 4627 (Siler bill), for the reasons set forth. At first hand, one might conclude that in taking opposition toward H. R. 4627, our reasons are purely selfish ones and for that reason we wish you gentlemen will bear with us for a few moments so that we may vindicate ourselves from that conclusion. Yes, we are workers in the licensed-beverage industry which is the only industry in America legally constituted by the public. It was created under the 21st amendment to the Constitution which was ratified December 5, 1933. Today, the industry's importance in the Nation's economic life cannot be underestimated. The licensed-beverage industry has become one of the most regulated industries of all, and yes, it is also the most heavily taxed. There are more specific laws and regulations controlling the industry's operations, Federal, State, and local, than probably all other business combined. We are mindful of the need for good sound regulations within the industry, however, we do oppose unnecessary, unenforceable, and unworkable Federal, State, and local restrictions upon the licensed-beverage industry. We understand its economic importance and the social responsiveness of the members of the industry. We contend, in the interests of the social welfare and as a citizen of democracy, a worker must believe in the safeguarding of personal privilege. Unnecessary legislation like H. R. 4627 is only one of the hundreds of indirect steps toward prohibition. We are familiar with the Prohibitionist Party line which seeks to discredit the licensed-beverage industry by blaming it for almost every social ill since Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden. Is it not true that the Alcoholic Tax Unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which administers the provisions of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, has the authority to guide and even to discipline the industry which it licenses? If there is any problem prompted by the initiation of H. R. 4627, could not this problem be resolved by the Alcoholic Tax Unit and not through legislation? Could not the Federal Trade Commission also lend aid if there is a necessity of this legislation? We believe the means are at hand without additional legisla- · tion at this time. Nobody in the industry will deny there are problems resulting from the sale of licensed beverages. We believe that if we have a will to rectify these problems outside of restrictive legislation it can be done. Need we recourse to an abridgement of freedom of speech and of the press? The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States at least embraces the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth. Abridgement of freedom of speech and of the press, however, impairs those opportunities for public education that are essential to effective exercise of power of correcting error through the processes of popular government. Where regulations of the liberty of free discussion are concerned, there are special reasons for observing the rule that it is the statute, and not the accusation or the evidence under it, which prescribes the limits of permissible conduct and warns against transgression. Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this Nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period. The safeguarding of these means is essential to the securing of an informed and educated public opinion with respect to a matter which is of public concern. We must remember that it is not merely the sporadic abuse of power by the censor but the pervasive threat inherent in its very existence that constitutes the danger to freedom of discussion. Summing up, we urge you to consider our arguments against the enactment of H. R. 4627. We believe there is no necessity for the legislation and even if so, the problem could be resolved through other means at hand without encroaching upon the rights of freedom of speech and of the press as guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Let us not also forget that legislation such as this, if passed, will only be playing into the hands of the drys and it will be used as one of the steps which can eventually lead us back to prohibition. In conclusion we wish to thank you gentlemen for your kind consideration given to our presentation and also we thank God for the privilege of freedom of speech as guaranteed us under the Constitution of this great and democratic Nation which enables us to submit these, our thoughts on the proposed legislation, H. R. 4627. STATEMENT OF PAUL E. MAXWELL, WEST VIRGINIA GLASS AND POTTERY WORKERS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Paul E. Maxwell. I represent the West Virginia Glass and Pottery Workers Protective League. Our membership consists of workers in the glass and pottery industries of the State. Individually, we include practically every race and religious creed found in America. Collectively, we are a typical cross section of American citizenry. As such, we are particularly apprehensive of legislation that would in any manner circumscribe or restrict our constitutional rights, under guise of improving our morals. We are most grateful to your committee for granting us the privilege of appearing before you in opposition to H. R. 4627. On several occasions during the past few years, bills identical to H. R. 4627 have been considered and rejected by this committee. Today, as at former hearings, those opposed have supported their arguments by incontestable facts, proving such legislation would be unwise, and injurious to the general public. It is not my intention to waste the valuable time of this committee by a repetition of these arguments. We do wish, however, to be on record as wholeheartedly in accord with the opposition to this bill, and respectfully request that it be rejected in its entirety by the committee. Thank you. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. BRANNAS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF MINNESOTA STATE COUNCIL OF BREWERY WORKERS, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman, my name is William E. Brannas, 1814 Second Street NE., Minneapolis, Minn. I am executive secretary of the Minnesota State Council of Brewery Workers. On behalf of its members I wish to offer objections to the passage or enactment of H. R. 4627, also known as the Siler bill, as being prohibitory, discriminatory, and emphatically detrimental to the licensed beverage industries from whence we get our livelihood. We, the workers in the licensed beverage industries, feel that the intent of this bill is to further the selfish interests of a minority group, whose sole interest is the return of national prohibition. This bill does not take into consideration the economical effect upon the Nation, the best interests of the public. It can easily be responsible for creating an economic chaos if enacted into law. It can further curtail or eliminate many jobs in the licensed beverage industries. Our Nation is known for its forwardness in all walks of life, by putting one foot forward at a time, so let's not put our shoes on backward as we fully realize from past experiences the drastic demoralized conditions that prevailed during prohibition. This bill, H. R. 4627, desires to take away the rights given to the people by the people and not by a minority of drys. If advertising our products is so detrimental and dangerous to our way of life as the case may be, then also the advertisement of safety razor blades should be curtailed or, better still, outlaw shaving, as one can easily cut himself and bleed to death. The passage of this bill to restrict honest and legal industries would set a precedent and be pointed to as urging additional legislation restricting the advertising products of other industries. We hope that your committee will give serious consideration to our views as expressed and vote "No" on H. R. 4627 in committee. Mr. BRADY. But these secretaries are: Sam J. Musey, executive secretary, Texas State Council of Brewery Employees; William G. Johnson, executive secretary of the Indiana State Council of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers; Lou A. Griesedieck, secretary, Missouri State Council of Brewery Workers AFL-CIO; John L. Helm, president, Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia Council of Brewery, Yeast, and Soft Drink Workers, AFLCIO; Raymond Koth, executive secretary, Ohio and Kentucky State Council of Brewery, Syrup and Soft Drink Workers; Hubert Cassidy, president and executive secretary of the Michigan State Council of Brewery, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers; Roland J. Hidde, executive secretary, Wisconsin State Council of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers; |