Acceptance of this legislation, which we are not convinced is inspired as much by high moral principles as it is by narrow partisanship, could well be an entering wedge for still further governmental surveillance over the columns of this Nation's press. An objective of such dubious merit must surely be expected to arouse a united front of opposition from the entire newspaper fraternity, already engaged, as it is, in a vigorous crusade to protect itself from further encroachments against its time-honored freedoms. The fact that there has been no discernible ground swell of demand for the prohibition which this measure seeks to accomplish proves it does not enjoy general and widespread support. Thus, it lacks the spontaneity of popular demand and from this lack we must conclude its source stems from bias rather than from a sincere desire for the public good. Speaking for myself alone, in the 20 odd years that have elapsed since the repeal of prohibition, I know of only one subscriber I have lost because my newspaper carried beer advertising and I can recall only two vocal protests against the appearance of liquor advertising in my newspaper. Both of these were many years ago. In closing, I would like to make it clear that these arguments on behalf of the weekly newspapers of America in opposition to this specific legislation are in no sense to be construed as part of a debate for or against the "wet versus dry" issue. This question was decisively settled by the Congress and the various States more than a score of years ago. To resurrect it here is to impose unnecessarily on the time, both of this committee and on the witnesses appearing before it. Our appeal for a negative vote from this committee in this instance is based on the fact that this legislation is (1) discriminatory in selecting one industry out of hundreds on which to impose unnecessary regimentation of its advertising, and (2) represents an unwarranted and unrealistic intrusion into an orderly process of established business, (3) may later be nullified as unconstitutional, (4) can well be the first step in a carefully calculated campaign whose next goal could be to abolish all alcoholic beverage advertising and then move on to other products with which a certain group may not be in sympathy, and (5) lacks the widespread public support, despite a small group of vocal partisans, which should accompany a question so highly controversial. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, a number of communications from the hands of the Chair will be included in the record, all of these being in opposition, including one just received from the American Newspaper Publishers Association, the Associated Business Publications, Mid-South Dailies, and a number of others of similar character. These will be included in the record. (The statements referred to are as follows:) Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, MEMPHIS, TENN., February 14, 1956. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. As representatives of a large number of newspapers in the south we are strongly opposed to H. R. 4627, a bill to prohibit advertising of alcoholic beverages scheduled for hearing by the interstate and foreign commerce committee February 16 and 17. This bill is strictly discriminatory and deals with censorship of a legitimate business as well as the press. Your influence to defeat this bill in committee would be appreciated. KEN W. HOWARD, Mid-South Dailies. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The American Newspaper Publishers Association is writing you as chairman of the House Commerce Committee in connection with hearings by your committee, February 16–17, on bill H. R. 4627, to prohibit liquor advertisements in interstate commerce in newspapers, radio-TV stations, peri odicals, newsreels, photographic film, or records for mechanical reproduction. We respectfully ask that our views be made a part of the record. American Newspaper Publishers Association is a trade association comprising more than 800 daily newspapers with more than 90 percent of total United States daily newspaper circulation. The ANPA protests action by Congress to prohibit advertising of alcoholic beverages, the manufacture and sale of which is legal by constitutional amendment. ANPA believes no action should be taken by the Congress to prohibit the advertising of any commodity it is legal to buy and sell. If it is legal to sell an article it should also be legal to advertise that article, whether it is wine, beer, liquor, an automobile, a washing machine, or a refrigerator. The public has the right to know of the existence of sellable goods. There is no reason to dwell on why the 18th amendment failed. It is sufficient that the American people, by vote, issued a mandate to repeal this amendment, leaving it to the individual States to determine for themselves whether alcoholic beverages should be transported, sold, or advertised within their borders. According to democratic processes, that mandate must remain in effect, unabridged, until the American people decide that a change is necessary. The importation, manufacture, sale, transportation, and advertising of alcoholic beverages became legal December 5, 1933, when the 21st amendment to the Constitution became effective. Various States since that time have exercised their local State authority over the regulation of alcoholic beverages within their borders. The Federal Government's Alcoholic Tax Unit of the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to regulate, but not prohibit, the advertising of liquor. Those regulations must be followed by advertisers of alcoholic beverages. In view of the repeal of the prohibition amendment ANPA believes the Congress should not say, by law, that it is legal to sell liquor but the fact that it is being sold must be kept a secret. Such would be the result of legislation, including bill H. R. 4627, prohibiting advertising. This would become part of a program to give the people less instead of more information. The ANPA firmly believes that so long as the sale and shipment of liquor or any other item remains lawful, its advertisement is in the public interest. Sincerely yours, CRANSTON WILLIAMS, General Manager. Mr. ELTON J. LAYTON, THE ASSOCIATED BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS, Clerk, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LAYTON: Will you please make this letter a part of the record of the February 16-17 public hearings on H. R. 4627, a bill to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of advertisements of alcoholic beverages. I speak for the Associated Business Publications, established in 1906, comprising at this time 161 technical, industrial, scientific, professional, and merchandising publications. Their combined circulation is in excess of 2 million paid subscribers. This association opposes H. R. 4627 and urges its defeat for the following reasons: 1. It would be unsound public policy to prohibit the legal advertisement of products which are legally produced under specific statutory authority of the Congress. 2. It would constitute unfair discrimination of advertising, a medium which has historically demonstrated its effectiveness as a force for selling goods, upon which so much depends for the maintenance and further expansion of our national economy. 3. If H. R. 4627 were allowed to pass it would establish a dangerous precedent because potentially it could contribute to the destruction of numerous important industries by prohibiting the advertising and sale of other legally produced products. This association opposes censorship wherever it may be attempted in this free economy, with particular emphasis on censorship which takes the form of restricting or prohibiting honest and ethical advertising of lawfully produced products. We submit the above as sufficient reason for the stand we here take, that H. R. 4627 should be decisively defeated. Very truly yours, WILLIAM K. BEARD, Jr., President. AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC. 1701 K Street NW., Washington 6, D. C., February 14, 1956. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. PRIEST: The American Merchant Marine Institute, a trade organization representing 53 United States-flag steamship companies operating in the domestic and foreign trades of the United States, wishes to express its opposition to H. R. 4627 which would make unlawful the transportation in interstate commerce, or by common carrier, of any newspaper, periodical, film, or record containing an advertisement of, or solicitation of, any order for alcoholic beverages. It is the belief of the institute that (1) it would be improper and unfair to restrict transportation and other means of interstate communication to accomplish an entirely unrelated purpose, and (2) carriers should not be put to the difficult task of attempting to prove that they did not knowingly transport newspapers, periodicals, newsreels, and other such articles containing advertisements of this nature. The difficulty of such a task would not only make it necessary for the carriers to refuse to accept shipments of such articles, but would require carriers to assume an inspection role of impossible proportions. Very truly yours, ALVIN SHAPIRO, Vice President. PENNSYLVANIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS' ASSOCIATION, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. PRIEST: On behalf of the newspapers of Pennsylvania, I wish to express our firm opposition to House bill 4627. Pennsylvania Newspaper Publishers' Association is a nonprofit trade association representing approximately 350 daily, weekly, and Sunday newspapers. Opposition by our membership as expressed through our executive committee and officers, is based on a simple but important opinion. We believe "to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of advertisements of alcoholic beverages" would be an illegal and unwarranted interference on the part of Government. Any product or service which may legally be distributed and sold in the United States should have the right to be advertised. If the Congress, after proper investigation and study determines that any particular product or service should not be offered to the American people, then it should properly legislate regarding that product or service. But in this particular instance, the American public went firmly on record only two decades ago to reverse a constitutional amendment and to again make legal the sale of alcoholic beverages. Our position is that this mandate of 21 years ago should hold firm and that as long as Americans believe alcoholic beverages should be permitted to be sold, that advertising of them should not be curtailed or prohibited in any fashion. We urgently request that these views be made a part of the record when your committee holds its hearings. We are sending 60 copies of this statement to Mr. Elton J. Layton, clerk of your committee, for use by your committee members. Respectfully submitted. S. W. CALKINS, Chairman, PNPA Federal Legislative Committee. NATIONAL RETAIL LIQUOR PACKAGE STORES ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PRIEST: We recognize that time is of the essence insofar as the hearings in opposition to the Siler bill are concerned. In the interest of conserving the time of your committee, we submit herewith our brief, with the request it be made part of the record in opposition to bill H. R. 4627. Sincerely yours, BENJAMIN JOSEPHS, President. The National Retail Liquor Package Stores Association, representing 44,000 package storeowners located in 28 States and District of Columbia, has authorized its president, Benjamin Josephs, of Worcester, Mass., to submit this statement in opposition to H. R. 4627, the Siler bill: This bill would prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages in interstate media. The measure, however, is not basically aimed at the advertising of alcoholic beverages. According to the proponents of this type of legislation, who have uttered their sentiments before your committee on several occasions since 1947 and again only last month before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the purpose of this bill is to hamper the lawful trade in alcoholic beverages. The proponents of this bill have never shown that there is anything more harmful in alcoholic beverage advertising than there is in other advertising, such as that of cigarettes, sugar, coffee, motion pictures, etc. The bill is therefore improperly aimed at alcoholic beverages-if the concern of the proponents is truly advertising. But the proponents of this bill are not concerned with advertising per se. They are concerned solely with the sale of alcoholic beverages. If Congress were to enact this measure, would such action satisfy any "dry" want? Would not the prohibitionists still have the so-called problem of the sale of alcoholic beverages? Would they not then return to Congress to ask that it ban the interstate shipment of these beverages? Or ask for a ban on the interstate shipment of grain and other materials used to make alcoholic beverages, or of glassware, cartons, and other materials that make the packages which are offered to the public? Do you honestly think you will satisfy by passage of the Siler bill any dry desire concerning the alcoholic beverages? The answer is obvious. We oppose this measure because: 1. It is an attempt to hack away at our lawful business pursuits on a piece-ata-time basis. No industry can survive this sort of side-door approach to its destruction. 2. It is rankly discriminatory and most likely unconstitutional from several standpoints. 3. It's properly a matter for consideration by State governments, under the power reserved to the States by the 21st amendment. 4. It solves no problem. 5. The elimination of advertising would be a disservice to the consuming public which numbers some two-thirds of our adult population. This population does not, we feel, have any desire to once again accept the dictates of a high pressure dry minority of the citizens. THE ASSOCIATED COOPERAGE INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA, INC., Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This association, representing some 560 manufacturers of cooperage and cooperage stock throughout the United States, wishes to go on record as vigorously opposed to the passage of the Siler bill (H. R. 4627). We feel that the passage of this bill would unjustly handicap a legal industry that was brought into being by the will of the people. Further, it would seriously injure the manufacturers of whisky barrels and their component parts, which depend upon the distilling industry for their livelihood. It is our considered opinion that passage of this bill would: 1. Deceive the public. The public is equally entitled to study the merits or demerits of alcoholic beverages, through advertising, just as it is entitled to study the merits or demerits of any other product in the marketplace. 2. Aid the bootlegger. About the only thing the bootlegger can't do today is advertise. This would put the legal industry, already taxed to death, under the same handicap. 3. Create an impossible enforcement problem. An army of censors and enforcement agents would be required to police this ridiculous bill. 4. Restrict the freedom of the press. Any periodical can refuse to publish advertisements of alcoholic beverages if it so desires. To force them to do so would be a violation of the rights of free Americans. 5. Injure numerous industries. These include newspapers, magazines, radio, television, printers, engravers, bottle manufacturers, package manufacturers, etc. We therefore urge that your committee, in its wisdom, refuse to yield to the fanatical demands of a few demagogs who would legislate the morals and living habits of the American people. We further urge that your committee in its wisdom, allow the American people, who voted alcoholic beverages into being, to determine the quality and contents of such alcoholic beverages through legitimate advertisements in all media. We further ask that this opposition to H. R. 4627 be made a part of the public record of the hearings on this Bill. Respectfully yours, Subject: H. R. 4627 Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, L. P. LONG, President. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. PRIEST: The Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc., a trade association representing a major medium of advertising and embracing 700 member outdoor advertising plants, covering more than 15,000 cities and towns in the United States, protests the enactment of H. R. 4627, for the following reasons: 1. Alcoholic beverages are legitimate products; witness the mandate of the people as evidenced by the 21st amendment. With the right to produce or manufacture any legitimate product is the inherent right to advertise that product for sale. An advertiser has always had the right to select, without limitation, the medium in which he chooses to advertise. H. R. 4627 deprives him of that right, as well as depriving various media of advertising of the right to accept that advertising. 2. If this bill were enacted, wherein lies the stopping point? Following the same type of reasoning advanced for the bill's enactment, other legitimate products might soon be subject to a ban of this kind, and other advertising media could be subjected to Federal regulation in respect to advertising any product. 3. This bill basically constitutes a form of Federal censorship which is repugnant to the average citizen. 4. Advertising depends upon good will. The various media of advertising have always observed the highest standards of ethics and good taste in carrying out their business. With this type of self-regulation, there is no reason or necessity for the enactment of this precedent-setting legislation. Advertising is too fine a tool to be blunted by unwarranted and unnecessary restrictions. 5. Without reference to the many constitutional questions inherent in this bill, we believe that for the reasons given above the House Committe on Interstate and Foreign Commerce can best serve the interests of the people, the cause of free enterprise and business generally, by refusing to report H. R. 4627 out of the committee. Respectfully submitted. KARL L. GĦASTER, Jr., General Manager. |