powerful medium to exert pressures which are out of proportion to all other areas of advertising. We resent the overwhelming pressure upon the children and young people in our homes as the liquor forces seek to condition their minds favorably toward those who make and sell liquor and toward its complete acceptance in our American way of life.

One of the major concerns of the church is the welfare of the family and there is no doubt but that the continued program of glamorous, smooth, high-powered liquor advertising beamed into the home by means of radio and TV has made devastating inroads upon the family in terms of broken homes, divorce, juvenile delinquency, crime, lowered standards of living, poverty, etc.

Secondly, we request a favorable vote on this bill to outlaw liquor advertising because this advertising is consistently reckless, false, misleading and deceptive and because it never gives any indication or warning of the fact that ethyl alcohol is a habit-forming, poisonous, narcotic drug. Because of this it violates the fundamental and basic principle of acceptable advertising. Why should an enti e Nation have to continue to be subjected to this persistent barrage of false propaganda on the part of an industry which exists only by sufferance and by virtue of special license and is even obliged to operate under numerous restrictions?

Are those millions of us who do not drink, who hate the stuff and know the evil consequences of its use, going to be forever denied the freedom in our own homes to turn on the radio and TV and not have our intelligence and finer sensibilities insulted and outraged by this obnoxious propaganda of the liquor forces?

Finally we ask you to vote this bill out of committee because the advertising of alcoholic beverages observes no limitation or barriers. For instance, it is unlawful in every State of the Union to sell alcoholic beverages to minors, yet a large part of the radio and TV audience is composed of these same minors, who are exposed to this smooth, appealing line of false propaganda much of which is purposely slanted to catch the eye and ear of youth.

By the same token there are certain areas in our country in which it is unlawful to sell liquor. The people by means of free, democratic elections have voted it out, vet the radio and TV carry over into these areas with their high-powered campaign of advertising to pressure these people into drinking.

These are some of the reasons why we of the United Presbyterian Church beg you gentlemen of the committee to report this bill, H. R. 4627, favorably out of committee. We are convinced that the enactment of such a law would be a great boon to our country at large and especially to our children who are the future citizens of America.

Mr. Chairman, since preparing the foregoing testimony I have come into possession of the Pacific coast edition of the Wall Street Journal for January 23, 1956, which contains a very illuminating article entitled "Beer and the Ladies" by staff reporter Winston C. Fournier, as he covered the 80th annual convention of the United States Brewers Foundation held in New Orleans. I should like to request that this article be filed as a part of this testimony since it reveals in a startling manner the way in which the brewers are regarding their merchandising and advertising to appeal to the housewife who is the major shopper in the supermarkets and grocery stores. Many, many representatives of leading breweries are quoted but Mr. Norman R. King, president of the Miller Brewing Co. seems to sum up the general attitude when he states *** over the years we have progressed from the saloon to the tavern to the home-and that's good for the industry***"

We do not think "this is good"-therefore we ask that a copy of this article be filed as evidence that the brewing industry is out to ruin the home.

STATEMENT OF DR. R. H. MARTIN, PITTSBURGH, PA.

My

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is R. H. Martin. address, R. D. No. 2, Cheswick, Pa. I am president emeritus of the National Reform Association and for many years chairman of the committee against liquor advertising of the National Temperance and Prohibition Council.

In support of this bill to prohibit the advertisement of alcoholic beverages in interstate commerce, I submit the following: I have just concluded a survey of the newspapers of the United States-the daily newspapers and the weekly newspapers-to find the number of the daily and weekly papers that are dry or par

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, whọ 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.