STATEMENT OF MR. W. L. FISH, 36 PARK PLACE, NEWARK, N. J. Mr. HERSEY. Whom do you represent? Mr. FISH. I am secretary of the association against the constitutional amendment in New Jersey. Mr. DYER. And also the editor of the Minute Men, which you gentlemen get a copy of. Mr. FISH. You get it very regularly. Mr. DYER. A very good paper, too. Mr. FISH. Some people do not think it is. Mr. HERSEY. I do. Mr. FISH. I try to be one thing in that paper-accurate in my figures. Mr. DYER. You spoke to me to-day that you would desire, in reference to testifying, to present an article or editorial that you had written. Mr. FISH. That I wrote myself. Mr. DYER. Entitled what? Mr. FISH. The Economic Importance of 2.75 Per Cent Beer. Mr. FISH. Yes, sir. Mr. HERSEY. Can we not all have a copy of that and read it? Mr. DYER. Would you let me see it? Mr. FISH. I am going to read it, just the one article, not the whole thing. There are some recent figures from Great Britain. Mr. DYER. Would it be satisfactory to you for the committee to put this in as part of your remarks, without reading them? Mr. FISH. It would be a very great accommodation to me, then I would not have to talk. THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF 2.75 BEER. Any rational and hard-headed consideration of the financial aspects of prohibition enforcement is sure to meet with the outraged protest of fanatical champions of "the cause." To view the subject from so sordid an angle, they will say is immoral, if not sacrilegious; it is compromising with evil, trafficking with the devil; it is exchanging "blood and tears" for gold. But if these extremists could forget their histeria long enough to allow a few incontrovertible facts to seep into their minds, if they would only allow themselves to be shown that by the use of a simple expedient not only could our people be benefitted materially, but the cause of true temperance advanced immeasurably, they might be less ready to engage in holy vilification and vituperation of those who dare to look the situation squarely in the face. Let us, then, consider some of these facts. Taxes are in the nature of a necessary evil, but when they become excessive they become dangerous to the security of the State. The people are crying aloud to-day for relief from excessive taxation and prudence and justice alike demand from those in public authority that the relief be afforded without delay. The high cost of living is burdensome, almost beyond endurance, to the masses of our people. Reduction in taxation is the direct and immediate means by which to lift this burden; for any one who has given the subject a moment's thought knows that the greatest burden of taxation is borne by the millions who pay no taxes as such, and would not know a tax bill if they saw one. Taxes are invariably passed along by the nominal taxpayers and usually they bank on a profit. The richer the taxpayer, the more the profit. The results are shown in the increased costs of clothing, rent, food and household goods; in fact, every commodity that householders must buy has increased on the average about 100 per cent, over prices obtaining a few years ago. falls most heavily upon people who are the least able to bear it. REVENUE LOST The burden The United States received in the National Treasury more than 600 millions of dollars a year in excise taxes directly from distillers, brewers, and wineries, in addition vast sums in income and excess profit taxes. Added to the tribute paid by this industry, which in 1909, according to the Census of 1910, was of the following importance: Capital invested in the liquor industry.. Total__ $1, 294, 583, 426 1, 121, 696, 097 453, 892, 553 $2,870, 152, 076 were State, county, and municipal revenues, the amount of which though very large are not obtainable. What did our people drink and how much of each kind of beverage? According to the "World Almanac," 1921, the average annual consumption in the United States for the five years before prohibition (1913-1917) was as follows: * Since prohibition, beer, a nonintoxicant under the amendment, has disappeared as a beverage. Instead the consumption of good and very bad distilled spirits is incalculable. The legalizing of 2.75 beer on the basis of a tax of $15 per barrel (collected at the source at practically no expense) would bring into the United States Treasury alone on an estimated consumption of 100,000,000 barrels (66,000,000 in 1914), $1,500,000,000. Almost one-half of the running expenses, including interest, of the Nation, and more to the good of the whole people, it would bring about temperance. GREAT BRITAIN'S EXAMPLE Great Britain, always sane, did not blindly destroy but has accomplished by its wise handling of the liquor question three tremendous benefits: Temperance, reduction of crime, and greatly increased revenues. The Wall Street Journal, through its editor, C. W. Barron, of February 14, 1923, published the following official statistics which should be studied by the Congress: The above figures are so startling and so conclusive as to make unnecessary further argument. They demonstrate clearly that the United States could arrest the national decay in government and in private and public morals, reestablish the supremacy of law, stop home brewing and family drunkenness, save thousands of lives now being sacrificed by alcoholic poisons, collect $2,000,000,000 per annum from drink, abolish the income tax, and change the current of capital income from Washington to the development of the country's industries, transportation, mining, and home building.-C. W. Barron, in the Wall Street Journal, February 14, 1923. It will be seen that consumption was reduced (1913-1921): Beer, 21 per cent; spirits, 34 per cent; and revenues increased, beer, 800 per cent; spirits, 220 per cent. Great Britain detailed statistics (official) are herewith presented relating to beer only. 1 Duty on barrels of 36 gallons at gravity of 1055°. ? Duty on 11 months' brewings only; brewers being allowed a further month for payment of duty, 3 Duty on 11 months' brewing only; brewers being allowed a further month for payment of duty beyond previous period. The figures in ordinary type show the revenue collected in Great Britain and northern Ireland; those in italics show the revenue attributable to Great Britain and northern Ireland. Duties increased. In 1914-15 and 1918-19, columns 3, 5 and 6 represent 11 months' brewings only. Since the latter year the duty paid in the financial year is that charged in the preceding calendar year. The figures in ordinary type show the quantities of beer upon which duty was charged, etc., in Great Britain and northern Ireland and the corresponding revenue; the revenue attributable to Great Britain and northern Ireland and the corresponding dutiable quantity are shown in italics. As was said at the outset, it is considered an appeal by a sordid and unmoral mind to present any argument based on the pocketbook, but, for the sake of argument, let us assume the correctness of this fallacy. Obviously, then, the acceptance of yearly payments by authority and consent of Congress, from Great Britain, on account of their indebtedness to us, should be spurned as money collected from "blood and tears," and all monies heretofore received should be returned. The same allies and supporters of prohibition who are the backbone of the opposition to the restoration of 2.75 beer should accomplish this. But will they? They will not. Great Britain reports a surplus of about $225,000,000 after paying $400,500,000 of war indebtednesss in its last fiscal year. Any school boy can figure out that had that nation adopted prohibition of beer it would have reported a deficit instead of a surplus, and without these hundreds of millions of dollars would be on the road to bankruptcy. And so we are deriving, under the eighteenth amendment, a revenue from the liquor traffic after all! Nullification for cash! The various nations of the world that have tried the prohibition craze are getting out from under as fast as they can-same reason with all of them, they are losing money by it, money that their wiser neighbors are raking in. Call the roll-Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Alberta on this side of the ocean. Consider Europe- Sweden, and now comes Turkey, very soon Norway and Finland. Press reports in regard to all these governments tell of the financial benefits that will accrue to each when each Sinbad throws over his old man. For a country with the business reputation that the United States boasts, it may be our lot to be the very last to get rid of our giant squid, but eventually it will come to pass, and the compelling reason will be that we can't afford it any longer, and then and not until then will the professional reformer lose his graft, and millions of their poor misguided dupes will suddenly discover that prohibition never was a synonym for temperance. : PADLOCKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL Declaring the padlock provision of the Volstead Act unconstitutional, Federal Judge George W. Woodrough, at Omaha, Neb., in his decision said: "If, to suppress the liquor traffic, this power can be conferred upon equity courts, I can see no reason why it should not be used to suppress every crime on the calendar." The right of trial by jury has been one of the most jealously guarded and effective bulkwarks of human liberty since Magna Charta. It is imbedded in specific terms in our Constitution. This ancient and valuable right has been gradually encroached upon by the courts, especially the Federal courts, through the injunctive process, so that the Volstead Act has been called merely the statutory recognition of existing law—judge-made law. The padlock sections of the Volstead Act are, however, the first statutory sanction, expressly provided, for this violation of the spirit of the Constitution, and are therefore something quite new in the age-old fight between tyranny and liberty. Under the padlock system, which is becoming more and more a favorite method among the judges, an accused man is not only deprived of a trial by jury, guaranteed by the Constitution and the common law, but the owner of a house may be deprived of his property though he himself may be entirely innocent. He is placed in the position of making his tenant obey the dry act or being himself punished by being deprived of his property. As Judge Woodrough pertinently says, if the right of trial by jury can be abrogated in a dry law there is no reason why any or all crimes may not be subject to injunctive process in courts of equity, criminal courts abolished and the right of trial by jury destroyed. Under the principle injunctions may soon be issued against all and sundry of us and being accused we will all be at the mercy of the judge. However, the courage and widsom of Judge Woodrough is not likely to stop the increasing tendency to break down all the old barriers which have protected individual liberty heretofore. His decision has no force or effect outside his own jurisdiction. Even if he is supported in the circuit court of appeals, his wisdom will be binding only in the courts in that Federal district. The only way in which the padlock provision can be thrown out of the law for good and all is by a decision of the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional or by a specific repeal by Congress. Those who are conversant with the present temper of the Supreme Court and with Anti-Saloon League_domination of Congress will not look too hopefully toward either outcome. (Paterson News, March 14.) Mr. STAYTON. There are three papers I would like to put in with the clerk as part of the papers, but not to go in the record. [These papers were presented to Mr. Dyer, presiding, who in turn delivered them to the clerk.] I would like for this paper entitled "Only 2 per cent of the American people ever voted for prohibition" to go in the record. Mr. DYER. Without objection it is so ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:) ONLY 2 PER CENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVER VOTED FOR PROHIBITION The records of the secretaries of the several States show that only 2 per cent of the American people ever voted for prohibition as a state-wide proposition. On the matter of ratification of the eighteenth amendment the people were given no opportunity to express their sentiment at the polls. There are 15 States in which prohibition had not been adopted as a state-wide program when the eighteenth amendment was ratified. These 15 States had a population, in 1920, of 50,257,517. There were 10 States that had legislative prohibition-that is, prohibition by act of the legislature-but which had not submitted the question to a vote of the people of the States. These States had a population of 22,014,831. There were 23 States that had adopted state-wide prohibition by a vote of the people. These 23 States had a population of 33,000,701. The tables herein show clearly that the people of 25 States, having a population of 72,272,348, had not given their consent at the polls to state-wide prohibition, while States having a population of only 33,000,701 had adopted state-wide prohibition at the polls. In the 23 States, 2,666,408 votes were cast for prohibition and 2,104,906 against it. The majority was 561,502, just about equal to the majority that the State of Illinois cast in favor of beer and light wines in the referendum of November, 1922. |