It is toward the woman of the wine commercials on radio are the suggestions that be appreciated by wine with the I have i family. 1 Constanter She knew U the finest bec ***** that's Mrs. Patter dren to be tot: about beer and school age. It is foolish t offensive comme constant guard b or wine commerci ing-we have it ri dedicated to "insu fare." What does sheltering our child necessary-as somet tributing to the gene leaves in its wake in that is threatening our Prof. Arnold Toynbe most contemporary hisi our western civilization after studying and disce the past. His statemer. of these discoveries. I am concerned about American citizen to use legislation designed to lim evils of our day. I am c years hence when these liqu to adulthood. Of course our children can protects them. To sell to 11 which indicates that the al from industry in general. It: privilege business. Many time past century. The liquor busin a restricted business. It is sul bition of sales on election day, t and with hours of sale limited There are no such regulations rega these restrictions on the sale of : bodies believe these restrictions a: welfare. The beverage alcohol business is a may legally engage unless he has be operates within the limits of the priv. of beverage alcohol is such that close a and wise. This matter of regulation is no ne recently from the book of Esther, ch who reigned "from India even unto Eti twent ovinces." In the third year This princes, his servants Persia. At this pagan fea seventh verse we are told 1 the king." He was ev. n regulated the drinking. drinking was according to pointed to all the officers o Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observation: If the gentleman can show us any similar portrayal-which is very shocking to me-in any magazine or newspaper, I wish you would bring it to our attention. I would like to say that any magazine or newspaper publisher who permitted himself to publish a picture of that character would be condemned by public opinion everywhere. Mr. BоHMFALK. Two of these have crossed State lines from Louisiana into Texas. Chairman PRIEST. Your statements have been placed in the record. Is Dr. Carl Sjulin present? Bishop HAMMAKER. He is not here. Chairman PRIEST. Is Mrs. Harvey Wiley here? Mrs. SMART. Mrs. Wiley had to go this morning, but we will file a statement for her. Chairman PRIEST. The next witness, then, will be Dr. Roy S. Holloman. STATEMENT OF ROY S. HOLLOMON, SUPERINTENDENT, THE KANSAS UNITED DRY FORCES Mr. HOLLOMON. Mr. Chairman, like the others, I will simply file a statement. I would like to read three brief paragraphs of it. I am sorry Congressman Klein is not here because this would seem to answer the question he raised in the committee of how could you have a legal business and yet deny them the right to advertise. We hold that the liquor traffic is not a legitimate business, and is only tolerated because the courts of America have held so. First, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the famous Crowley v. Christianson case, the Court said: There is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of the State or of a citizen of the United States. As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited, or be permitted under such conditions as I will limit to the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of regulation rest in the discretion of the governing authority. While I am not an attorney, the way I understand it, though these are old decisions, they have not been upset by any later decision by the Supreme Court. And then over on page 3, I wish to read the following: In the light of these things, gentlemen of the committee, it seems to us that it is the duty of the Congress of the United States to pass legislation that will at least keep the liquor traffic from trying to increase its devastating effects. This proposed legislation would not deny liquor to those who now have access to it, but it would keep the liquor traffic from enticing others, especially the youth of America, to become drinkers and drunkards. If the Supreme Court of this United States has held repeatedly that no citizen of the United States has an inherent right to engage in the liquor business, certainly it then follows that they have no inherent right to advertise a business that is only tolerated. Chairman PRIEST. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. HALE. The expression "to advertise a business that is only tolerated"; is that quite a fair characterization? In States and counties where the sale of liquor is legal, it is as legal as any other business, is it not? Mr. HOLLOMON. If I might answer the gentleman, I happen to be a poor Baptist preacher. I am not a lawyer, and I put into the record of the Senate hearing that only the Lord knows how a lawyer's mind works. But according to all the decisions of the Supreme Court, that statement is a fair statement, that it is a business that is only tolerated. It may be legal, but there is no inherent right that evolves in it. Mr. HALE. There are a lot of businesses which have to be licensed in one form or another, but once they are legal, they are legal for all purposes. I think the gentleman is not altogether accurate in that respect. You are opposed, I take it, to the sale of liquor, are you not? Mr. HOLLOMON. That is right. Mr. HALE. Of course, anybody opposed to the sale of liquor would necessarily be opposed to the advertising of the sale of liquor. But the problem which is presented to us is just the advertising problem, divorced from the question of the sale. Mr. HOLLOMON. And this whole paper, sir, attempts to address itself to that point. As I said in here, this bill, if passed, would not deny liquor to anybody who now has access to it. It does not enter into that fact. But it seems to me, just as a matter of cold, cold logic, that if the United States Supreme Court has held that this is a business which is only tolerated, only when it is legalized Mr. HALE. I do not believe the gentleman is quite fair. That is not the way I read the opinion of the Court. The Court says, in the language quoted, that it is a business "attended with a danger to the community," that it may be prohibited entirely or it may be permitted under certain specified conditions, as in package stores and what not. But when it is conducted within the four corners of the law of the jurisdiction where the sale is made, then it is a legal business just like any other business. Mr. HOLLOMON. Well, of course, I suppose we could go on Mr. HALE. It is an equally legal business. Mr. HOLLOMON. Well, I am not sure I would grant you even that statement, that it is an equally legal business. Mr. HALE. It may not be an equally moral or ethical business in your judgment or that of some other people, but I think it is either legal or illegal, and if it is legal, it is legal in every respect. Mr. HOLLOMON. If the Congressman is satisfied to leave it there, I am satisfied to leave it there. If he wants any more on it, all right. Chairman PRIEST. Are there any further questions? If not, thank you. Your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF ROY S. HOLLOMON OF TOPEKA, KANS. My name is Roy S. Hollomon. My address is Topeka, Kans. I am an ordained Baptist minister and superintendent of the Kansas united dry forces. This organization is the agency of the Evangelical Churches of Kansas to deal with the liquor question. I am appearing in support of the Siler bill (H. R. 4627). We hold that such a bill is called for and ought to be passed because of the nature of the liquor traffic. We hold that the liquor traffic is not a legitimate 74186-56-13 |