Temperance Union is actively supporting and indorsing this bill. I have the following letter from Mrs. Yost: NATIONAL WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION, Washington, D. C., March 27, 1924. Hon. LOUIS C. CRAMTON, MY DEAR MR. CRAMTON. I am writing to express interest on behalf of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union in your bill, H. R. 6645, and to express the hope that it may speedily be reported favorably from the committee. We have studied the bill, and believe its provisions, if enacted into law, will greatly aid in dispatching the work of enforcing prohibition. Very sincerely yours, LENNA LOWE YOST The Methodists' board of temperance, prohibition, and public morals, passed a resolution at their last annual meeting, readingMr. MONTAGUE. What is the date? Mr. CRAMTON. I am not quite sure of the date. It was a few weeks ago or two or three months ago-in which that organization committed itself to a polocy to have an independent bureau, directly under the President. The resolution is so brief that I will read it into the record: The resolution passed at the annual meeting of the board of temperance, prohibition, and public morals, in regard to prohibition, reads: Whereas, the manifold blessings of prohibition, its stimulation of industry, its vast contributions to a higher standard of living, its service in providing accumulations of capital in our savings banks, its protection against the saloon and the arrogant tyranny of the beer trade, should not blind us to the necessity for an increased efficiency in administration of the law: Therefore be it Resolved, That we hereby memorialize Congress to remove the Prohibition Unit from the authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury so that power and authority may be centered in a bureau responsible only to the President and the people, organized and officered for the sole purpose of suppressing the beverage traffic in alcoholic liquors. I understand, and I speak advisedly, that that is still the position of that organization. Mr. DYER (presiding). Of course, Mr. Cramton, they do not claim, nor does any one claim, there is any request before the committee, so far as this bill is concerned, relative to the enforcement of the prohibition act? Mr. CRAMTON. I do not want to be diverted just now, if the Chairman please, into an argument of the question Mr. DYER. I say, you do not claim that-that there is any question of that kind before the committee? I do not think any one claims that? Mr. CRAMTON. I will say this: I am not sure that I understand the chairman's question. I would like, first, to say this, for fear that I do not get to it: I speak advisedly in saying that the resolution I have read still represents the position of that organization. But they regard the measure which I have introduced as providing a much better situation than the present and say, not feeling that their ideal can be realized, they are in favor of my bill. Now, as to the point raised by the chairman Mr. DYER. What I wanted to bring out was, if I can, so that it may be understood, is that the committee is not concerned, I do not believe that the committee or any member of it is looking at this as involving any question so far as the enforcement of the law is concerned; it is only the question of whether the law can best be enforced through your bill or by some amendment. Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I assume this to be the case, that every member of this Committee on the Judiciary and of the Congress of the United States is earnestly desirous of having our fundamental law enforced and will act in accordance with their best judgment as to how that may be brought about. There may be differences of opinion. I will say, however, that the purpose I am seeking in my bill (whether I am following in that bill the best route, or not, is a matter for discussion) is primarily to secuer a more efficient enforcement of the law. That is what I am seeking to accomplish. Mr. DYER. I think the committee is all with you on that point. Mr. CRAMTON. Yes. Now, of course, it is a matter of argument before the committee and for consideration by the committee as to just the best way to secure that enforcement of the law; but I just state that this particular organization feels that to have a bureau entirely apart from any department would best accomplish that; but if they can not secure that then they indorse my proposition. Mr. SUMNERS. Mr. Cramton, on that point-and not on that point either, especially--but I would like to hear you, at some time during your discussion, deal with the suggestions made by the gentlemen whose concerns are using alcohol for ordinary legitimate purposes. Mr. CRAMTON. Yes. Mr. SUMNERS. To my mind they raise a very serious question that must be considered. Mr. CRAMTON. I will say to the gentleman from Texas that I did not rise at this time for the purpose of presenting an argument. I hope the committee will indulge me later, near the close of the hearing. Judge Britt, of the Prohibition Unit, I hope the committee will hear this morning, and I presume he will direct his discussion somewhat to that point. Mr. SUMNERS. That is the only point I want to hear. Mr. CRAMTON. That seems to be really the only point that has been raised against this bill; the only attack upon it in its present form is from those who, in legitimate industry, are using industrial alcohol and who have expressed the fear that to have the administration of the law as to them entrusted to a bureau, such as I propose, that is created for the enforcement of the law, might endanger their legitimate interests. Now there have been a great many organizations heard in the last few days before this committee, who have taken that view and expressed that fear; organizations that certainly do represent legitimate industry and industries that could not properly be disturbed in our country. It would be disastrous to disturb them. There have been so many of those organizations and so many important industries have spoken, that I fear the committee may get the impression that all users of industrial alcohol share in that fear as to what would happen to them if the administration of the law as to them should be intrusted to this bureau that I am proposing. That would not be an accurate impression. I think the committee may safely assume that the matter has come to the attention to all extensive users of industrial alcohol, so that all who are particularly opposed to it have had an opportunity to make their views known. And I just want now to call to the attention of the committee that one very important organization, the American Drug Manufacturers' Association, has not been heard in opposition to this bill. I am not quoting them in favor of the bill; I simply remark the fact that the American Drug Manufacturers' Association, made up of some 60, I think, very important concerns, Abbott Laboratories; Allaire, Woodward & Co.; Anderson-Hillier Co. (Inc.); Armour & Co.; Bauer & Black; W. J. Bush & Co.; Citro Chemical Co.; Davies, Rose & Co.; Digestive Ferments Co.; the Dow Chemical Co., etc.-if I may have leave, I will insert the list without taking the time to read it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you understand they are in favor of this proposition? Mr. CRAMTON. I do not state that. I am simply saying this; I am calling to the attention of the committee that not all users of industrial alcohol are here protesting any fear of what would happen to them under my bill. The CHAIRMAN. It is not so much the persons who appear as the reasons they offer, that impress me very much. I Mr. CRAMTON. We will discuss the reasons in a few moments. am now just bringing that to the attention of the committee, that the users of industrial alcohol are not all manifesting this same fear. Mr. JAMES P. MCGOVERN (representing American Chemical Industries). Suppose you take another adjournment for a week and we will endeavor to line up the balance of them. Mr. CRAMTON. While I will say to the gentleman who has made that suggestion, I noted the other day the committee did not permit me to question some of these gentlemen, I will respond to the gentleman's suggestion, that if, in a week, he can get the American Drug Manufacturers Association to come here with one word of protest against this bill, I shall be greatly surprised. And the gentleman knows he can not get them. We won't have any bluffs of that kind. Now, there is one organization, the United Medicine Manufacturers, representing a great many users of industrial alcohol, in support of this bill. I thought the gentleman would be here this morning, but he has not come in yet. I simply refer to that fact now and will let him speak later. (The list of members of the American Drug Manufacturers Association submitted by Mr. Cramton is as follows:) MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN DRUG MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, Ill.; Allaire, Woodward & Co., Peoria, Ill.; Anderson-Hillier Co. (Inc.), New York City, N. Y.; Armour & Co., Chicago, Ill.; Bauer & Black, Chicago, Ill.; W. J. Bush & Co., New York City, N. Y.; Citro Chemical Co., Maywood, N. J.; Davies, Rose & Co., Boston, Mass.; Digestive Ferments Co., Detroit, Mich,; The Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich.; Fairchild Bros. & Foster, New York City, N. Y.; Fritzsche Bros., New York City, N. Y.; Hance Bros. & White (Inc.), Philadelphia, Pa.; Hynson, Wescott & Dunning, Baltimore, Md.; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, N. J.; Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; Lloyd Bros., Cincinnati, Ohio; McIlvaine Bros. (Inc.), Philadelphia, Pa.; Mallinckroft Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo.; Maltbie Chemical Co., Newark, N. J.; Maywood Chemical Works, Maywood, N. J.; Merck & Co., Rahway, N. J.; The Wm. S. Merrell Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; John T. Milliken Co., St. Louis, Mo.; Monsanto Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo.; H. K. Mulford Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; National Drug Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Nelson, Baker & Co., Detroit, Mich.; New York Quinine & Chemical Works, New York City, N. Y.; Norwich Pharmacal Co., Norwich, N. Y.; Nor vell Chemical Corporation, New York City, N. Y.; Parke, Davis & Co., Detroit, Mich.; The E. L. Patch Co., Boston, Mass.; S. B. Penick & Co., New York City, N. Y.; Chas. Pfizer & Co., New York City, N. Y.; Pitman-Moore Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; Powers-Weightman-Rosengarten Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Roessler & Hasslacher Chemical Co., New York City, N. Y.; Seabury & Johnson, New York City, N. Y.; Sharp & Dohme, Baltimore, Md.; E. R. Squibb & Sons, New York City, N. Y.; Frederick Stearns & Co., Detroit, Mich.; TailbyNason Co., Boston, Mass.; The Tilden Co., New Lebanon, N. Y.; A. M. Todd & Co., Kalamazoo, Mich.; The Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Mich.; Wm. R. Warner & Co., New York City, N. Y.; Wilson Laboratories, Chicago, Ill.; The Zemmer Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. Now, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad if Judge Britt may have time to present information in rebuttal to what has come from these users of industrial alcohol. Mr. DYER (presiding). We are very glad to hear from you, Judge Britt, at this time, in rebuttal. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. BRITT, COUNSEL, PROHIBITION UNIT Mr. SUMNERS. Judge Britt, before you begin, if I may inquire, I would just like to hear you, as early as you can conveniently reach it in the course of your presentation, discuss the proposition that I directed to the attention of Mr. Cramton. Mr. BRITT. I have that in mind. Mr. SUMNERS. Personally, I would like you to get to it as soon as you can conveniently do so. Mr. BRITT. When I was before the committee recently, a Member, I think it was the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Montague, requested that I would procure from the records certain information on a point raised, to wit, whether there was or was not extensive violation of the law through the withdrawals of alcohol; and, in compliance with that request, I requested one of the divisions in the counsel's office to take at random a number of cases from the records and take a brief description from them, withholding the names of the parties concerned, for reasons that are obvious, unless requested by members of the committee, and to have them ready for me to offer to the committee, if they desired them, and I have prepared that list and will be prepared to offer it at such time as you desire to hear it, either reading it or filing it, according to your pleasure. I think, Mr. Chairman, it will not take a great deal of time for me to express the views that I think I should express in advocacy of this bill. As I stated to you before, I did not suggest the bill originally; I took no original initiative in its behalf. I came into it by being called in by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury, asking that I make somewhat a study of it and present one or more brief memorandums to them and then informally confer with them, because they wanted my views as to the bill. did so at their request and I am here simply to make clear, I trust, solely for the information of the committee, the views which I expressed and which may, in some wise, have controlled the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Secretary of the Treasury in their decision in relation to the bill. I In the first place, the Secretary's letter to your chairman, which chanced to be dictated by me, contains his position, the position of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the position of the Pro hibition Commissioner, and of all whose views I have heard expressed, who are in official authority in the administration of this subject. The Secretary said these brief words: as I understand this bill, it proposes to create a bureau of prohibition in the Treasury Department, under the general supervision of the Secretary and his assistants, as are other bureaus, giving to the Commissioner of Prohibition, which office it creates, the entire administration of all prohibition laws, present and prospective, reserving only the collection and covering into the Treasury of all taxes fixed by such laws, and all assessments and penalties arising thereon, as determined by the Commissioner of Prohibition, to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and with this understanding of the bill I give it my approval. Should there be any necessary changes, either verbal or substantial, to effectuate these ends, your committee will, no doubt, make them before the passage of the bill, and, this being done, I hope the bill may speedily become a law. am not here, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to say that the bill should remain in its present form verbally or substantially. If there are imperfections in the bill, either verbal or substantial, as the Secretary says, it is, of course, to be expected they will be corrected, and I shall most heartily join, if there is any service I can perform, to that end. The question propounded by the gentleman from Texas embodied the gist of the whole thing. The national prohibition act, in its very title, provides for the enforcement of the eighteenth amendment through effective legislation, and it also provides, it must be said in frankness and in justness to the discussion, for the provision of a liberal supply of alcohol for use in the industries of the country and in the arts and in the sciences and in the manufacture of dyes and other articles of which it constitutes a constituent. And the act in its caption also says that these last purposes are to be encouraged. I wish this to be made perfectly plain, because I want to make an honest and candid discussion of the whole subject, in so far as time will permit. Now, the act in its three parts, the war prohibition act, titles 1, 2, and 3, have the same caption, the same title, and the same purpose, it seems to me that it will be impracticable, if not impossible, to separate the administration of the act into parts. The administration of the act includes and involves the administration of the distribution and allowance of industrial alcohol for industrial manufacturing purposes. To come pretty early to the question, although there are other matters to which I want to address myself in this connection, but to answer that as early as possible, if the proposed bill either prevented the manufacture or the distribution or the allowance of a necessary quantity of alcohol for all of the legitimate purposes to which the industries and the arts and the sciences of the country may apply it if it prevented any of these things, it would not be a wise bill. So the question is, in the purview and scope of it, what does it provide and what would it reasonably prevent. Now, let us take up some of the reasons adduced against it here. The arguments produced by the learned gentlemen on the other side, if I may say they are on the other side, although I doubt whether that is exactly the proper characterization, are based fundamentally upon the suggestion that the Commissioner of Prohibition, in a bureau of prohibition, would not administer either as wisely, as honestly, or as prudently as a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is exactly |