as far as it can go and that the solution rests in the hands of the United States Congress.

We believe that the people of Iowa have recently reiterated their position and desires on the matter of promoting and expanding the use of liquor. This happened in June of 1954: In the Republican primary 6 men filed for governor and 3 for attorney general. In the governor's race 1 man came out openly for liquor by the drink. According to press statements, his attitude was that 40 percent of the people in the State wanted liquor by the drink and they would carry him to victory. Another man came out in opposition to liquor by the drink. He was at that time the attorney general and had developed an outstanding reputation in the field of law enforcement. The church people and the temperance organizations back this man. It was a terrific campaign. The State law requires that a primary candidate must have 35 percent of the vote cast or it must go into convention. When the smoke cleared away, the present governor, Mr. Leo Hoegh, lacked just a few votes of having 40 percent. Of Iowa's 99 counties, he carried 77. The avowed candidae for liquor by the drink, despite the fact that he was a former mayor of the city of Des Moines, failed to carry a single county. He didn't even win his own. In the attorney general race the same year the man who won with a few votes less than Mr. Hoegh is the present holder of that office, Mr. Dayton Countryman. He was virtually unknown and about 5 years out of law school. He had served 2 terms as county attorney of Story County. His opponents were both well known. The father of 1 of them was formerly attorney general and the other 1 was at the time he filed on the attorney general's staff. Veteran political observers stated that "nobody knew Countryman from a country post." He came out for unqualified enforcement of the Iowa liquor laws. The church people in Iowa, through the temperance organizations, supported him, and there are those who describe his victory as the biggest upset in 40 years of Iowa politics. There can be little question but what this primary clearly pictured the desires of the Iowa people, namely, that they are against expanding the consumption of alcoholic beverages. We are satisfied that the vast majority of the people of the State are in favor of this legislation that is before you, and we are also satisfied that they are hoping and praying that everything necessary shall be done to enact the provisions of this bill into the supreme law of our land. We have seemingly gone about as far as we can go. Surely the Congress will want to extend its help in our efforts to protect our citizenry, present and future, from this unwarranted and unwanted invasion of liquor propaganda. Our hopes and our prayers rest with you. Thank you.

Chairman PRIEST. The next witness is the Reverend Warren J. McFate.

STATEMENT OF WARREN J. McFATE, ON BEHALF OF THE EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH, IOWA CONFERENCE

Mr. McFATE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Warren J. McFate, pastor of an Evangelical United Brethren Church in Des Moines, Iowa.

I am representing 23,000 Evangelical United Brethren Church members in the State of Iowa who plead for the passage of this bill.

In the interest of brevity, I would like to have my statement filed for the record, and if there are any questions I would be happy to answer them.

Chairman PRIEST. Thank you very much for your statement.

Are there any questions?

If not, thank you very much.

Your statement will appear in the record at his point.

(Statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE REV. WARREN J. MCFATE, REPRESENTING THE EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH, IOWA CONFERENCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Warren J. McFate, pastor of an Evangelical United Brethren Church in Des Moines, Iowa.

I am

representing 23,000 Evangelical United Brethren Church members in the State of Iowa who plead for the passage of this bill.

The Evangelical United Brethren Church is unalterably opposed to beer and liquor advertising in all forms. But regardless of the fact that liquor is presently legal to manufacture and dispense, still the Constitution of the United States delegates to the Congress the right and responsibility to make laws affecting the public welfare and for the protection of its citizens.

These responsibilities, we feel, cannot be overlooked because of some slight revenue that might result from their denial. The fact that the liquor interests have done such a good job of poisoning the minds of the American people, so that 64 percent of the people do drink alcoholic beverages, does not alter the fact of the grave responsibility upon Congress to protect the millions of people who presently do not drink and who do not wish their children to drink alcohol. Regardless of whether parents drink or not, the fact remains that most parents do not want their children to grow up being badgered with enticing slogans from poisonous narcotics. I believe that most church people do object to beer and liquor advertising on television and radio and through magazines in homes where it will be seen by children.

A very grave issue in this bill is this: Are the millions of fathers and mothers who want to see their children grow up into sober right thinking good citizens, looking to the Congress of the United States to give them this small assistance in their efforts, going to be given the protection of the laws of the land to do so?

Juvenile delinquency has been increasing tremendously over the past 10 years, as most people know. Some of the increase can be explained by our fast growing population and more accurate reporting of juvenile crimes. But this is not sufficient to explain why 1 million juvenile delinquents appeared before the courts of our land last year. I realize that juvenile delinquency is usually the result of a large number of factors. Dr. J. Edgar Hoover has been repeatedly quoted as saying, "Juvenile delinquency is largely due to parental failure." The largest single factor in the breakdown of the home is alcohol. This I have discovered from personal experience as a pastor in dealing with many broken home situations.

My church is located in an area of the city where alcoholism is a very grave problem. One Sunday morning I was awakened at 5 a. m. by a man who obviously was under the influence of alcohol. He informed me that he was on his way to kill the person who beat him up and threw him in the river the night before. This man died some time later under very peculiar circumstances, his life and his home wrecked by alcohol. On another occasion, for example, I spent hours with an anxious father, who is what one might call a moderate drinker, trying to find his son who had run away from home because his parents were fighting so much. The father sobbingly told me he did not want his son to grow up a drinker, like himself.

What parent who drinks would say that the person who induced him to take his first drink did him a favor or rendered him a benefit? What parent who drinks would say that the person who induced his child to take his first drink because "beer belongs" or that "men of distinction" drink alcoholic beverages, what parent would say that such a person had rendered his child a favor?

The question at issue is not one of attempting to curb freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. We are not suggesting that the advertising of products known to benefit the physical, mental, or moral well-being of our country be curbed.

The Congress has already limited the advertising of certain products, even though legal to manufacture, that were known to be against the public good. For example, the Pure Food and Drug Act and other forms of narcotics than beverage alcohol. If these restrictions are advisable, so is protection against the misleading and enticing advertisements of beverage alcohol, branded a poisonous narcotic by many eminent authorities of our Nation. Alcohol is the only poisonous narcotic allowed the privilege of advertising their product.

We deeply resent the pressure of beer and liquor advertisers to invade our homes, and delude our children, day after day, with the suggestion that it is an innocent and wholesome product.

I'm sure the entire membership of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, numbering three-fourths of a million people, are praying that you will see fit to vote for the passage of this bill. I thank you very much for the privilege of presenting this statement before your committee.

Chairman PRIEST. The next witness is the Reverend James Sloan, of Monroe, Iowa.

STATEMENT OF JAMES SLOAN, MONROE, IOWA, CHAIRMAN OF THE IOWA-DES MOINES ANNUAL CONFERENCE BOARD OF TEMPERANCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH

Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in the interest of brevity, I would like to file this report.

There is one comment I would like to say:

Morality cannot be legislated, but, like a greenhouse with flowers, the legislature and the Congress can create an atmosphere where our young people can grow into useful and constructive lives.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain from commenting on the fact that we have another distinguished Iowan with us today. Chairman PRIEST. And the Chair will again say that we are happy to have him, and all the good people of Iowa that come before this committee.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PRIEST. Your entire statement will be made a part of the record at this point, Mr. Sloan.

(Statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES SLOAN, OF MONROE, Iowa

Mr. Chairman and members of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, I am James Sloan of Monroe, Iowa, a Methodist minister, and chairman of the Iowa Des Moines Annual Conference Board of Temperance of the Methodist Church, representing a membership of 140,000 in the southern half of the State of Iowa; also the stand of our church in this matter as stated in the "Discipline of the Methodist Church."

"***Since human welfare decreases as the drinking of alcohol increases *** the church must be vigorous in opposition to * * * falsehoods cleverly presented in liquor advertising and propaganda, not only appearing in magazines, newspapers *** but also presented through the media of radio and television. *** We denounce the continued invasion of homes by liquor advertisers who seek to indoctrinate even our children in the use of alcoholic beverages, and we deplore governmental toleration of this practice. We call on the Congress of the United States to enact legislation to prevent the use of radio and television for such purposes,"

Gentlemen, it is a pleasure to appear before you, to commend the efforts of those interested in the passage of this bill. So often we are accused of being negative in our approach.

This declaration quoted from the official pronouncement of the Methodist Church was not arrived at hastily. Through application of the Christian ethic, observance of the effects of alcoholic beverages on human personality, economy of past, as well as present society, testimony of its users, comes an almost parallel indictment of the use of alcoholic beverage. It is of interest when the question is raised as to the benefits of alcoholic beverages, the strongest answer given is that it does no harm, although overindulgence is bad. 2

It is the considered opinion of many, that the advertisements for alcoholic beverages are based on half-truths, and false impressions by association. Only one side of the picture is portrayed, and those of inexperience, if judging from the advertisements, would be misled to an erroneous conception of the nature of alcoholic beverages. There is no hint in the beautiful ads as to the questionable acts of one under its influence.

The attitude of the liquor industry is interesting concerning this bill. They stress their own ability for self-regulation, however practical results are seldom

1 The Discipline of the Methodist Church: 1952 edition, par. 2022, p. 640.

2 Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages, H. R. 1227, May 19, 20, 21, and 24, 1954. Testimony of Joseph E. Brady, p. 103.

3

forthcoming. They state that their occupation is legal, but do not argue too convincingly that it is morally right, and seek to draw analogies by association with other products in which there are no moral judgments, implying that they are on the same basis, that therefore any restrictions to their advertising is discriminatory, and would inevitably open the door for governmental control and censorship in other areas. They refuse to face the fact that the liquor industry is not based on the inherent right of the individual, but is a privilege within circumscribed limits set by law, and that the regulation of advertisement is a legitimate increment to the policing action of that industry. The real incongruity of their logic is apparent when in the same breath they contend that their ads do not stimulate trade, but only help to select the correct brand, that there is no relation between the amount and kind of advertising and the quantity of alcoholic beverages sold; and yet vociferously complain at the least suggestion of any restrictions in this area, and openly state their future intentions of expanded advertising programs. It is moreover implied that during prohibition more liquor per capita was sold without advertising than now, but no statistics are given in proof.*

Though the use of alcoholic beverages has been practiced for innumerable centuries, overindulgence has usually been frowned upon, and in our complex society, even moderate drinking creates untold misery, waste of resources, and life. The true character of alcoholic beverages is recognized by governmental controls, Federal, State, and local. In our State of Iowa there have been restrictive measures on advertising alcoholic beverages for 20 years, unchallenged, but they are only State laws, and are not enforceable in interstate commerce. That, gentlemen, is your field. Do communities desiring freedom from alcoholic beverages have any consideration? Are all the privileges on the side of the liquor industry?

Where there is smoke, there is fire. It is conceivable that the concern of the liquor industry is not above its own self-interests, being basically an attempt to strengthen its sale of products in our Nation and to its people.

Others have pointed out the effects of alcoholic beverages in its relation to crime, highway fatalities, health, family life, and loss in industry through accidents and loss of time. It is a difficult task to solve, but I am sure that this is one right answer, the passage of this bill.

A greenhouse is a place where the right kind of climate is made for flowers to grow as they should. Morality cannot be legislated, but legislation can help create an atmosphere where the children and youth of our Nation can live useful and constructive lives as adults. Whatever is necessary for this achievement is imperative and worthwhile. This is your challenge.

Again, my appreciation for your kindness, and steadfast desire for your favorable report on this bill.

Chairman PRIEST. This morning it was not possible for Maj. Clayton Wallace to testify before the committee. Therefore, the next witness will be Major Wallace.

STATEMENT OF CLAYTON M. WALLACE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEMPERANCE LEAGUE

Mr. WALLACE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will not take but a moment.

I am Clayton M. Wallace, Washington, D. C., executive director of the National Temperance League.

I would like to file, first of all, the statement of Dr. Duke K. McCall, national president of the National Temperance League, and say in regard to this statement that I think in the five pages that it occupies, it contains a very concise and complete summary of the thinking of our church people on this matter.

(Statement referred to follows:)

3 Ibid. Testimony of Edward B. Dunford, p. 353. Ibid. Testimony of Arthur P. Bondurant, p. 431.

STATEMENT OF DUKE K. MCCALL, LOUISVILLE, KY., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TEMERANCE LEAGUE, INC.

My name is Duke K. McCall. I am president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. My address is Louisville, Ky I submit this statement as president of the National Temperance League, Inc., having its principal office at 131 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington 3, D. C.

The National Temperance League is a federation of over 40 State temperance organizations. Its objective is, "the seeking of a moral and scientific solution of the beverage-alcohol problem in the United States." The national board of directors at its biennial session in Dallas, Tex., November 15, 1954, took the following action.

"The National Temperance League urges continued efforts on the part of its staff and all affiliated State temperance organizations for legislation to curb and eliminate liquor advertising and beercasting."

At its recent executive committee meeting in Oklahoma City, on October 3, 1955, it was declared:

"Believing in the importance of eliminating alcoholic beverage advertising as a means of reducing the harm arising from the consumption of alcoholic beverages, the League urges support of legislative proposals introduced into the National Congress or into State legislature to ban or restrict alcoholic beverage advertising."

The League was established as an agency through which citizens in sympathy with its purposes could work in an organized interdenominational way for the attainment of its objectives. A constructive solution of the beverage alcohol problem, in the final analysis, must depend upon the attitude and practices of individuals composing society. Christianity deals primarily with the individual. The church in seeking to promote the principles which the Master taught, undertakes to do so by influencing the mind, conscience and conduct of individuals. In order to protect the rights of the individual, to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, governments have been established. Under a democratic form of government such as ours, the right of the individual to enjoy these common objectives is guaranteed by constitutional safeguards.

Among the guaranties contained in the Federal and State constitutions, is that of religious liberty. There are a number of religious organizations represented in the organized temperance movement which require of their members, as a condition of church membership, that they shall agree to abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages. There are other religious groups which, while not enjoining abstinence, nevertheless, teach the toxic character of alcoholic liquors and warn against drunkenness and other social evils which frequently attend the use of such beverages.

The liquor business, under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, exercises a mere privilege. The product sold is both toxic and nonessential. In their efforts through advertising to influence the individual to drink liquor, sellers pursue no altruistic objective but seek merely to keep their customers and to find new users of their product. In the United States today a majority of the citizens deem it expedient to furnish a legal means of access to liquor to those desiring it, but it is very questionable that many citizens would agree that the effort to stimulate the wider use and consumption of alcoholic beverages is a desirable social objective. Much of the present-day demand for liquor is the result of social pressure developed through the centuries. This is now being augmented by the propaganda contained in modern alcoholic beverage advertising. At present the churches, in their efforts to teach spiritual values and scientific truths, are faced with handicaps which arise by reason of the prevailing conditions. The educational work of the school in teaching the scientific facts about alcohol, is in a measure, being offset by the propaganda contained in liquor advertising. The public schools are maintained by taxes exacted from the citizen, but the Government grants to the liquor seller the right to deduct from his gross income his reasonable expenditures made for his advertising.

The propaganda contained in alcoholic beverage advertising contains many half truths such as "beer belongs" or the implication that the use of liquor is an essential factor in social intercourse. There are millions of people who do not use beer or liquors and are not harmed by their self-restraint. There are also a great many elements of society in which the drinking of alcoholic beverages is not a part of the social pattern. We also have had such advertisements by