to keep the States dry; but in the States that did not have the dry act

Bishop CANNON. Like New York.

Mr. PERLMAN. Like New York.

Bishop CANNON. Yes.

Mr. PERLMAN. Have you not met anyone there?

Bishop CANNON. I have heard men say something like this, "Well, I do not propose to have this puritanical law put over on me. I will do as I please about the thing," and I say to you, very frankly, those States were not nearly as ready for the prohibition law as we would have had them. But the law was necessary, because the other States would not let the dry States alone. Maryland would not let us alone. She kept shipping in her liquor into Virginia. We said finally, "We will make you stop it." That was the way it was in New York and Illinois.

Mr. PERLMAN. That was one of the motives?

Bishop CANNON. One of the motives was to protect the country from the people that would not agree that we should be permitted to protect ourselves.

Mr. PERLMAN. Could you not have gone to each State and propaganded for a dry law?

Bishop CANNON. But so long as you had your depots, your vast monetary interests, and your distilleries in Baltimore, with all their capital, influence, and power, so long as you had that, you had a force there to reckon with.

Mr. PERLMAN. They did not have the finances any more than the dry forces. Was not the dry force equally strong?

Bishop CANNON. No; financially, the dry force was not equally strong. Except that you might take all the assets of the Christian people and say that they belonged to the Lord.

Mr. PERLMAN. I mean the money used to have the eighteenth amendment adopted. Somebody said that it cost $35,000,000 or

more.

Bishop CANNON. $35,000,000? I do not know what he said. I have been in the fight for 30 years, and I think the Christian people of this Nation have spent a good deal of money, and they may have spent $35,000,000 in educative propanganda. They ought to have spent it, and I think they have. I have raised thousands of dollars to help spread the information.

Mr. FOSTER. Years before the eighteenth amendment?
Bishop CANNON. Yes; absolutely educative work.

Mr. PERLMAN. It was for educative work?

You

Bishop CANNON. Education of the boys as well as the men. can not expect a man to go out and proclaim the gospel and have his motives questioned, subject himself to slander and abuse and even loss of life. He must furnish his home, and have bread and meat. You ought to pay men, if they give their lives to a great cause.

Mr. PERLMAN. Have you ever seen anyone who drank six or seven glasses of beer containing 2.75 per cent alcohol by volume intoxicated? Bishop CANNON. Since my college days I confess I have not been much in the company of the beer drinkers. In my college days I would see the boys get drunk on ordinary beer.

Mr. PERLMAN. What was ordinary beer then six per cent?
Bishop CANNON. I suppose it was four or five per cent.

Mr. PERLMAN. By weight?

Bishop CANNON. I suppose it was. They would get drunk enough with that and get very offensively drunk, so that those of us carrying them home had a very disagreeable time.

Mr. PERLMAN. They were not getting 2.75 per cent beer by volume then.

Bishop CANNON. I do not know. I did not discuss that matter with beer drinkers much in those days.

Mr. PERLMAN. Neither have I, and that is what I am trying to learn. Is 2.75 per cent beer by volume intoxicating?

Bishop CANNON. I have heard men say that they have gotten mighty drunk on it.

Mr. PERLMAN. You have not seen it?

Bishop CANNON. And I have heard some girls or women say they were given some beer which was said to be harmless, and it made them drunk.

Mr. PERLMAN. You do not know if it was 6 or 5 per cent beer? Bishop CANNON. Well, that is what they reported, I think. Three per cent, something like that, Schlitz or Pabst.

Mr. PERLMAN. Bootleggers are not trying to sell 2.75 per cent beer.

Bishop CANNON. I suppose it is difficult to handle beer much that way. They are trying to sell whatever is the most convenient to carry and what will bring the most money.

Mr. PERLMAN. Pre-Volstead beer what the bootleggers are trying o sell; is not that so?

Bishop CANNON. I reckon they are trying to sell whatever their bottles hold. I suppose they are trying to accommodate themselves and make the most money.

Mr. PERLMAN. Have you talked with any chemists in a position to tell you, as to whether or not 2.75 per cent beer by volume is intoxicating?

Bishop CANNON. I read that Dr. Howard Kelly, who is one of the greatest physicians in this country-I read that he said that 1 per cent was intoxicating to some people.

Mr. PERLMAN. Where did you read that?

Bishop CANNON. In one of the hearings before this body I know htat I read that he said that somewhere.

Mr. PERLMAN. I have not read it.

Bishop CANNON. You can write to him and ask him. I am sure he said it.

Mr. PERLMAN. If Congress should pass an amendment to the Volstead law permitting the sale of beverages containing no more than 2.75 per cent alcohol by volume, will that make any change in those dry Ŝtates in the South you have referred to that have enforcement acts on 1 per cent or below?

Bishop CANNON. It would have this effect, Mr. Congressman, that it would authorize the establishment of great breweries all over the North, which will have accumulations of capital and will be powerful, and they will do everything possible to push their wares through the South and anywhere they can.

Mr. PERLMAN. Would not those breweries make every effort to help eliminate the brewery which is to-day selling 6 per cent beer down South?

Bishop CANNON. I do not know. Birds of a feather will flock together when they are fighting a law. They do not fight each other much. They would try to incite lawlessness in the South. The record of the breweries is lawlessness. You have that in your Senate reports.

Mr. PERLMAN. You differ from the democracy of New York, don't you?

Bishop CANNON. The democracy of New York stands, or it is reputed to stand, for the modification of the Volstead law, and for 2.75 per cent beer, and I do not believe that the democracy of New York in that represents the democracy of this Nation.

Mr. HILL. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HILL. The witness says that Maryland has become so contaminated that it was not a representative southern State.

Bishop CANNON. On this question.

Mr. HILL. And that Maryland was foreign born. I want to ask the witness to put in those figures.

Bishop CANNON. I said that it had more foreign born than any other southern State except Louisiana.

Mr. HILL. I will ask the witness if he will state what percentage of the population of Maryland is foreign born.

Bishop CANNON. I will find out.

Mr. HILL. Do you not know now?

Bishop CANNON. No.

Mr. HILL. You have made the statement that Maryland is foreign born, without any statistics?

Bishop CANNON. I said that it has more foreign born than any other southern State except Louisiana.

Mr. HILL. You do not know the population of the foreign born in Maryland?

Bishop CANNON. I do not know.

Mr. HILL. I only ask that question to call the attention of the committee to the fact that you have put other figures in here of which you are not sure.

Bishop CANNON. I was born in Maryland. I was born in Salisbury. That is my native town. I lived there until I was grown and I know that Maryland, especially Baltimore city, it has more foreignborn population than any other southern State except Louisiana.

Mr. WHEELER. Four or five witnesses would like to be heard. There is one from out of the city I wish you would hear now, Mr. William Shaw, representing the Christian Endeavor World and that great society of Boston.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM SHAW, REPRESENTING THE CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR WORLD, BOSTON, MASS.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Mr. Shaw, before you proceed I am going to respectfully ask you to confine yourself to the question before the committee, that is, whether or not this committee ought to recommend favorably the bills proposing a 2.75 per cent content of alcohol in beer.

Mr. SHAW. I think I understand that matter, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Whether or not that is intoxicating. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at the beginning may I say that if I speak to you with a certain restraint and quietly, I do not want you to think that is because I am not deeply moved on this question, but unfortunately I have a severe heart trouble that ruled me off the public platform and has forbidden all excitement. It is difficult for me to sit in a meeting like this and listen to what is said in the dialogues without getting somewhat excited. I am afraid that I have been in danger, but I do wish to say that for 40 years my life has been given to the young people's work. I have been general secretary of the young people's society of the Christian Endeavor with more than 80,000 organizations, 4,000,000 members. I have seen 15,000,000 of young people come into that organization, graduate from its training and go out into their work in the world, and they have been trained in the principles of Christian citizenship. That was made one of our departments in 1893. The result of that training, in great conventions, in union meetings, in local societies, through civic clubs and organizations, they are trained under men and women who believe that citizenship is the first asset of a republic and that we ought to express our religion in our politics. That has been part of my work for 40 years.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if you will pardon me, I may suggest that it will save your time and save my time if the member of the committee who has persistently tried to find out whether 2.75 per cent beer is intoxicating or not would refrain from questioning me on that point, because I never drank it and I do not intend to taste it, but I understand that he has introduced a bill for 2.75 beer. May Í recommend that he take his own medicine and sit down on a keg and try it. He is not a drinker, he said here. Let him try his own medicine and see for himself whether or not it is intoxicating, and we will take his testimony for what it is worth, but I have no information to give on that point. So please do not take my time or your own in asking me about it.

Now, I am opposed to the 2.75 per cent, and other bills here have a light-wine attachment-yours is not, I believe; you simply want the straight goods; you do not believe in mixing drinks. But light wine is attached to the others. I am opposed to all these iniquitous measures, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, because they are deceitful and they are dishonest, and I use those words advisedly. They are deceitful and they are dishonest. They are not what they pretend to be. I will not say that the gentlemen who present them believe that. They may be honest enough about it but the measures themselves are deceitful and dishonest. They ask for 2.75 per cent beer and for light wines. Mr. Chairman, have they ever defined how light they want the wine? I fail to see anything of that kind and yet that is a very important question to come before your committee. I would like to ask any of the gentlemen if they have ever drunk 2.75 wine. If they have not, and if it is not the worst belly wash they ever had, I do not know where they get it. You can not have real 2.75 wine. You can not have wine with not more than 2.75 content. If you want to get it down to 2.75 per cent, you have to adulterate it and I believe that is against the Federal laws, to adulterate liquor. You can not get it down to that standard without adulterating it.

I am opposed to these bills because they are deceitful and dishonest on the very face of them. In the second place it is not 2.75 beer that these people want who are breaking our laws, and that is another thing. It is amazing how sensitive these people are to the breaking of laws of the Federal Government. They were never so in the old days but they are becoming terribly concerned because our people are breaking the laws. Do these bootleggers want 2.75 beer? No, they do not; but if they can get it all the rest of it will come in under cover of it, because if you have 2.75 beer, in my opinion you have got liquor that will intoxicate a man, and if you have got that, then it does not matter whether you sell 2.75 per cent or 10 per cent, because a man who is intoxicated will come out and say, "I only drank the 2.75 per cent and Congress said it ought not to make me drunk." The fact that it does is unfortunate, of course, but Congress said it is not intoxicating. The amendment, as you know, says nothing about the percentage; it says intoxicating liquor. Now, if Congress says that 2.75 per cent is not intoxicating, it is simply unfortunate for the man if it does intoxicate him.

Mr. FOSTER. He would not be legally drunk.

Mr. SHAW. No, sir.

Mr. PERLMAN. The bootleggers do not want 2.75 per cent; they merely want the Volstead law.

Mr. SHAW. They want the Volstead law as administered by men who want the 2.75 beer. They do not want it as administered by me. If I could enforce the Volstead law you would not find any bootlegger asking for 2.75 per cent wine. If you give the enforcement to the men that want it enforced you will have a different story to tell throughout the United States.

Now, I will say this, that the proponents of these measures are deceitful and dishonest when they come here and say they do not want the saloon. Now, why do they say that? Because they know that the American people have done with the saloon, so they do not dare to advocate it, and they say, "We do not want any saloon. All we want is the liquor." Well, that is all right. They know what the influence of the saloon was on our civic life. They know what the influence of the saloon was on legislation. They know what the influence of the saloon was on the courts. They know what the influence of the saloon was on human life. They know what the influence of the saloon was on the boys and girls, for whom, thank God, I have had the privilege of working for 40 years. You can not run a saloon without the boys any more than you can run a sawmill without the logs. You know the wreck and ruin that has come from the open door of the saloon. All our sorrow and misery and vice and crime, if it is traced back to its source, will be found to lead to the open door of the legalized saloon. There is no such institution now. Where is the legalized liquor traffic? There is no such institution now. It is outlawed and the American people are going to see that it remains outlawed.

I was pressed into the service along the line of politics in Massachusetts eight years ago, in 1915, at the request of my fellow citizens, many of them, when I ran as the prohibition candidate for governor of Massachusetts against Sam McCall and David Walsh, the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor of Massachusetts. I did not expect to be elected but I went into that campaign to chal