after be extended by similar argument to all tobacco advertising, to all drug advertising, and possibly to a host of other commodities. Certainly there are people in the United States who feel just as strongly as to the deleterious effects of tobacco as they do about the use of alcoholic beverages, and some people think tobacco is even worse. By similar token, there are many people who feel that drug products are unnecessary, among them being great religious sects, certain types of doctors, and others. It can be no secret to this committee that a great many physicians disapprove heartily of the idea of any self-medication whatsoever, no matter how minor the ailment might be. If Congress can validly pass legislation of the type now before it, the time may not be far distant when groups representing other minority segments of opinion will be pressing for new laws to extend the principle embodied in H. R. 4627. These are the sorts of considerations which give manufacturers cause for concern. Advertising plays an important role in this question for today as never before it is the lifeblood of American com

merce.

Publishers, too, must feel grave concern, for this bill would say to them that the circulation of public news is dependent upon the question of whether a particular commodity, lawful in itself, is or is not permitted to be advertised on the inner pages of a newspaper. A publisher might well shiver in his boots at the implications of such a policy, for he could say to himself that if the Congress were able to cut off his revenue from advertising lawful commodities it could put him out of business.

The bill discriminates unfairly as between different publishers with no justification in any corresponding public benefit

The bill discriminates unjustly against those media of advertising which transcend State lines, without serving any useful purpose. Some newspapers may remain entirely in intrastate commerce. All outdoor advertising is local in its nature. There cannot conceivably be any public welfare that is advanced by taking business from media owner A because he happens to be in interstate commerce and giving it to media owner B whose circulation is confined to the limits of a single State.

SUMMARY

(1) When the people of the United States enacted the 21st amendment they expressed their will that, insofar as the Federal establishment is concerned, there should be no public policy against the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. To say, as H. R. 4627 does, that a manufacturer has the right to sell alcoholic beverages, but may not advertise them is-in a realistic sense-a revocation of his right. The bill thus represents an unwarranted Federal meddling in the affairs of the individual States counter to the clear intent of the 21st amendment.

(2) Since H. R. 4627 is not consistent with constitutionally declared Federal policy and if enacted would certainly represent unwanted and unwarranted interference with the internal policies of the nonprohibition States, the only further question concerns its justification as a Federal aid to the dry States. However, the harmful consequences these States seek to guard against are ones which can arise only from drinking alcoholic beverages-not from reading or hearing about them. A ban on reading or listening is dangerously close to the thoughtcontrol measures of police states which are so repugnant to Americans.

(3) H. R. 4627 discriminates against advertising media in interstate commerce and favors those media which happen to be exclusively in intrastate commerce.

(4) With the exception of narcotic drugs (which are regulated by international convention) no law of the United States prohibits absolutely the advertising of a commodity which may be lawfully produced and lawfully sold. H. R. 4627 attempts to violate the sound principle embodied in this fact and would open the door to attempts by other minority groups to ban the advertising of commodities which they do not favor.

(5) Finally, in contrast to the insignificant benefits, if any, the bill would have for dry States (a) it conflicts with the basic spirit and intendment of the 21st amendment; (b) it treads dangerously upon the due-process clause of the Federal Constitution; (c) it encroaches upon freedom of the press and of speech; (d) it arbitrarily imposes onerous burdens upon lawful interstate commerce, all out of proportion to any good that it could possibly do; (e) it arbitrarily imposes onerous burdens upon the major media of news and intelligence, which are of vital importance to our way of life.

Such legislation would be unconstitutional at worst, and unwise at best.

Mr. WEIL. Thank you, sir. I think I can sum up the nub of the position of our association very precisely and perhaps make a few brief allusions to some very important questions that have been raised during the give and take this afternoon.

My name, incidentally, is Gilbert H. Weil, and I am here on behalf of my client, the Association of National Advertisers, which is a nonprofit trade association of the State of New York with more than 540 member companies whose common interest is the use of national advertising.

The members of the association include only 18 distilleries, 13 brewing companies, and 4 vintners, which comprise less than 6 percent of its total membership.

The position of the association insofar as this proposed legislation is concerned would be exactly the same as if it had no such members. Its position would be exactly the same and its opposition as vigorous and for the same principles if the bill involved tobacco or medicine or any other product other than alcoholic beverages.

Our point, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Hale, is simply this: if a product is a product which can be lawfully sold, lawfully consumed, that a very dangerous precedent and concept is pursued to say it may not lawfully be advertised.

We do not feel that the advertising carries with it any harmful tendencies which the product itself does not have.

Insofar as liquor is concerned, one cannot drink the advertising. One cannot come to any of the harms that are attributed by many people to alcoholic beverages by reading the advertising of it. True, the advertising may cause an increased consumption of the product, but if your premise is that consumption of the product is not counter to the public interest, then I think that is an irrelevancy.

Mr. HALE. Will you repeat that because I did not hear it.

Mr. WEIL. Yes, sir. I say conceded that advertising may increase consumption of the product advertised, I do not see any harm in that if you start from the premise that the product being consumed or the consumption of the product involved is not counter to the public interest.

Individuals may have different opinions on that subject insofar as alcoholic beverages are concerned. But those individual opinions must subordinate themselves to the opinion and the public policy on that point as expressed by the Federal body politic through the 21st amendment. In other words, I think we must accept as our starting point the fact that insofar as the Federal Establishment is concerned, it is not considered that there is harm to the public from the consumption of alcoholic beverages. That has been declared in a forum and at a level that cannot be changed by the Congress because it has been done in the form of a constitutional amendment.

I think one must distinguish between use and abuse. Consumption may cover both. We have talked in rather general terms today about increasing the consumption. Consumption may be increased without abuse being increased. Certainly as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, it is conceded that alcoholic beverages may be consumed by the public of the United States without there being a public interest against it.

If that is so, and if, according to our premise and our starting point and our predicate, there is no public interest against using alcoholic

beverages, then by what token can there be a public interest against advertising?

That is what we fear as a dangerous precedent because it can extend, as other witnesses have pointed out, to many different products. It could be applied to tobaccos, patent medicines, and a number of different things.

Mr. Hale, you raised an extremely interesting question early this afternoon on the extent to which there may be a difference in the situation because of the fact that radio stations and television stations are involved, which are subject to the Federal Communications Commission and the congressional licensing power.

I might say that I think the predicate of a lawful product is important to keep in mind there, too. I do not think that the Congress or the Federal Communications Commission has the right to license or revoke licenses or control radio or television stations except in the public interest. For example, I do not think the Federal Communications Commission could withhold or withdraw a radio station's license on the ground that it advertises automobiles or lawful products and there is no public interest against advertising them.

By Federal declaration in the form of a constitutional amendment, alcoholic beverages have been made lawful products. I think you would have a very grave question indeed as to whether Congress or the Communications Commission would not be going counter to the declared public policy and interest if it made the mere advertising of these products a ground for denial of the use of the airways.

Mr. HALE. Let me ask the gentleman, there: The issue as to the legality of alcoholic beverages has been settled at least for the time being. I personally do not want to return to prohibition days and I do not think very many people do, but certainly the gentleman will be the first to admit that it is possible to abuse the use of alcoholic beverages and many people do abuse the use of alcoholic beverages. Mr. WEIL. Yes. I think virtually any product can be abused. I think automobiles are being abused and possibly cigarettes and medicine.'

Mr. HALE. Let us not go into that.

The gentleman will admit that alcoholism is a disease and a serious disease which makes ravages on our people.

Mr. WEIL. Yes, that may be. Are we not, sir, now discussing the questions of policy which have already been decided by the 21st amendment?

Mr. HALE. No, I do not think we are discussing anything of the kind. What we are discussing is the influence of this type of advertising, particularly over radio and television, on nondrinkers or sensitive youth and on people who may be influenced to make an excessive or injudicious use of a legal product. The gentleman has mentioned automobiles. I am quite certain that the Congress, if, for example, it were convinced that it would be in the public interest to do so, could pass a law saying that no car should be permitted to cross State lines unless it had a governor which prevented it from going over 60 miles. an hour. I do not think the Congress will pass any such legislation, but if it did, the legislation would be constitutional because the Congress would have the power to say that the Federal highways should not be abused by automobiles which were inherently dangerous.

Surely we have very wide constitutional powers to protect the health of our people, to protect the morals of our people, and to protect the public safety against things like juvenile delinquency.

Mr. WEIL. We raise no dispute over the power of Congress to regulate. We raise a very serious question over the power to prohibit in toto. I think therein lies the difference.

We do not question the right of the Congress to enact legislation which is reasonably designed to regulate against abuses of advertising. Mr. HALE. For example, under existing conditions, trucks are a necessary instrumentality of interstate commerce, but we do not hesitate to say that trucks shall not be over a certain size or weight and that they shall have certain equipment.

Mr. WEI EIL. That is correct, Mr. Hale. I believe that is regulation and not prohibition. The bill that is now before this committee takes the viewpoint that there cannot possibly be any proper advertising of alcoholic beverages. This is what we dispute. We have no dispute against reasonable regulation in order to avoid or prevent abuses.

We do have a very serious dispute with the concept that a product can be lawfully sold but that there is no conceivable way of lawfully advertising it.

Mr. HALE. I can assure the gentleman that there are many members of this committee besides me who resent the suggestion that they have to drink beer in order to live graciously or that they have to drink beer in order to have a taste for good books. The actual advertisement of these beverages is provocative to very many members of this committee if not to all.

Mr. WEIL. These may be questions of different opinions and different tastes. If there is a conformity of opinion on any one phase it could come under the heading of regulation.

But it need not prohibit any and all possible advertising. There certainly is a realm of proper advertising of a product if it is itself a lawful product to be sold and consumed. That is the point of our opposition to the bill.

Mr. HALE. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all of your statement, Mr. Weil?

Mr. WEIL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. The CHAIRMAN. This concludes all witnesses for the opposition of the legislation.

The record will remain open for a few days in order to receive statements that previously have been requested or information requested by the committee and which witnesses have agreed to furnish and also to include any other statements that should be included to complete the testimony.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(The following statement was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT BY FRED A. TOBIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Fred A. Tobin, representing the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America. My office is located at 25 Louisiana Avenue, Washington, D. C.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, representing approximately 1,350,000 dues-paying members, voices strong opposition to this proposed legislation. The international union

has in its organization a group of unions closely allied with the brewery industry, called the National Conference of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers, which is composed of over 50,000 members.

It is particularly in their interest, and in the interest of our other members, that we appear here to register our protest against this legislation.

This bill, S. 923, on its face appears to show that its only intent is to control advertising alcoholic beverages across State lines. By prohibiting such advertising, you curtail the use of beef and ale, thereby causing, in many cities, considerable unemployment in our membership. If Congress and the voting public deemed it necessary to revoke the prohibition law back in 1933, then this committee should not approve any such bill which would tend to bring prohibition back by means of restriction in advertisements.

We have the Federal Trade Commission, a competent body, which watches closely unfair and unjust advertising. Why then, should we have a bill directed solely to advertising in connection with alcoholic beverages?

It is a well-known fact that advertising stimulates the use of a product, and that newspapers exist primarily because of their advertisements. Millions of dollars annually are spent by large business concerns to bring to the attention of the consuming public the nature of a product manufactured or sold. In short, it is an accepted fact that advertising promotes sales which, in turn, means greater production.

Our organization submits that curtailment or restriction of advertising will directly result in lessening production. This will, in turn, cause a diminution in the need for various products necessary to the manufacture of beer and alcoholic beverages. It would also result in a lesser demand for personnel services for men and women wage earners, who derive their livelihood from these industries. To illustrate: a lessening demand for alcoholic beverages would endanger and jeopardize job opportunities of truckdrivers, inside workers and helpers, who are now employed in the distribution of such commodities. It is with this thought in mind that we are appearing before your committee urging you to reject the proposed bill now under your consideration.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. FERRO, UTICA 2, N. Y., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF BREWERY, SOFT DRINK AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES WORKERS, INC.; REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BREWERY AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS; EASTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS

Mr. Chairman, honorable members of this committee, I am a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and the Committee of Industrial Organization. I am the executive secretary of the Council of Brewery, Soft Drink and Allied Industries Workers, Inc., which represents over 9,000 workers employed in the alcoholic beverage industry located in New York State. I am here also representing the National Conference of Beverage and Soft Drink Workers, which represents over 50,000 workers employed in the alcoholic beverage industry, and the Eastern Conference of Teamsters, all of which are affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, before making my statement, I would like to present to your committee the statement of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which I have the honor to also represent at this hearing in opposition to S. 923.

My people are opposed to Mr. Langer's proposal because, if this bill is favorably acted upon by your committee, and is finally made into law, it will prohibit legitimate concerns from advertising their products. It will prohibit radio networks from accepting alcoholic beverage advertisements. Also, it will prohibit newspapers and magazines from carrying such ads in interstate commerce. This is restrictive legislation. Such restrictions would not only put every manufacturer of alcoholic beverages eventually out of business, but would also hurt the advertising business considerably, and put many small people out of business. Advertisement of beverages, like any other product, is a necessity to all the people. Advertising causes the manufacturer to give the very best and the people to know what they are buying. No other concern in this great country is prohibited from advertising its product. Why, then, should the beverage industry? This proposal is the back door to prohibition. The individuals present, who favor the passage of this bill, are, for the most part, all professional drys. Their aim