within the circle of his family, but it also tends to estrange husbands and sons from their homes, entices them to places hidden from the eyes of the public and the law, and makes sneaks of them. Prohibition tends to destroy family life and happiness, deprives menand women as well-of their individual right to eat and drink what they like, leads to secret vices and allures husbands from their wives and homes. If people did not want the liquor, they would not order and buy it. If you pass a law like the Hepburn bill, you will create law breakers, and if people get accustomed to break the law in certain instances, they will lose the respect for the dignity of the law, and break it easily in other cases.

STATEMENT OF CONRAD WITT, OF NEW YORK

Mr. WITT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will not entertain you very long, as there has been so much spoken about this question that there is not much more for me to say.

I have been sent here from a body of men consisting of about 150,000 good American citizens. They have sent me here to hand in a protest against this bill. I do not see how anybody can go to work and dictate to anybody elese what he shall eat and drink. I, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, can tell you from an experience which I had myself where I drank these liquors, at least some of them, that they are actually a food for a great many people. I had, for instance, sickness in my own family, and the doctor told me there was nothing else that would help the sick person but to get a good bottle of champagne and give the person half a tablespoonful every hour, and the person got well.

Mr. CLAYTON. That doctor must have been a homeopathist, was he not? [Laughter.]

Mr. WITT. No, sir; he was not. [Laughter.] The person got over that sickness, and if he had not got that he might not have been over his sickness.

I can tell you another incident which I witnessed. I have seen the case of a fire where there was a woman carried out unconscious, and the first thing they ran for was a glass of brandy to bring her to again. And I think if they had not had that the woman might not have got over it.

I have another instance, gentlemen. I can tell you in my younger days my wife and I had small children. My wife nursed them, and by nursing them she felt so sick that the doctor gave her the order to drink every day a glass or two of good porter, and I thank the Lord my wife is well and healthy to-day.

I do not see why we should go to work and dictate to anybody what they should eat and drink. Let those people that do not feel inclined to drink anything do without it. Let them drink a glass of water. I do not object to it. I drink it myself, not only once a day, but a few of them every day, but I think if anybody feels inclined to drink a glass of wine or beer and thinks it is good for his health he should be permitted to do so. I would like to see some of our temperance women, if they should meet with an accident, as I have stated before, in a fire, and they should be carried out of a house unconscious and anybody should hand them a glass of champagne

or a small glass of brandy, whether they would shake their heads and say, "No; I can not take it. I would sooner die." I think they would grab it with both hands for the chance of living a few years longer.

No, gentlemen, I do not see the use of all this. There have been many arguments, and there will be others, probably, for a few days longer, and I do not see the use of taking the time of our Congressmen away from other matters on a bill like this, which never can be passed. Therefore, gentlemen, I think the quickest way we can do away with it the better it is for all of us. I thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF OSCAR FROTSCHER, OF PHILADELPHIA.

Mr. FROTSCHER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will not prolong your agony in listening to more or less interesting arguments very much. The legal and constitutional aspect of this bill has been exhaustively gone over, and I will not touch that phase of the question. A great mass of details have been brought before you, and I will not add to them. I shall merely attempt to give a few observations concerning the general principles and touching only on salient features and main outlines.

Coming before you as a representative of the German element of the population, I desire at the outset to disclaim any intention to advocate that the preponderating attitude of that element, which is well known, should have any weight in determining the issue unless, indeed, it conincide broadly with the paramount considerations for the general welfare.

I believe no group of citizens, whatever their bonds, not even the large group that is allied by the ties of the prevailing religion, should claim or should be accorded any special or exclusive consideration in this matter; for any solution arrived at from narrow or partial points of view can, in the nature of things, be but temporary, and is certain to come up for consideration later on.

I conceive that it is necessary to view this matter from a comprehensive point of view, embracing in it certain points, namely, a true conception of the fundamental characteristics of universal human nature, stripped of race or creed bias. Further, the proper consideration of the spirit of republican institutions and the proper regard for past experience.

Concisely stated, the issue here is as follows: Effective total prohibition is aimed at by the advocates of this bill. There is very little doubt about that. A reasonable license is demanded by the opponents of the bill. The issue, therefore, hinges on the question as to which of these two solutions would redound to the greatest benefit of the general weal in its totality.

The first two guiding principles which I hold should govern in leading toward an adequate solution of this issue, namely, true appreciation of human nature, stripped of incidentals, and the due consideration of republican institutions, almost coincide in the elements which they present for consideration; for it is an axim that the republican form is the highest form of Government, mainly because it accords most closely with the fundamental desires and legitimate aspirations of the human being, in that it permits the greatest latitude

of individual self-determination, consistent with the orderly and progressive development of the whole.

The doctrine of laissez faire is the corner stone of democratic institutions in contradistinction to paternalism, that of autocratic forms. From these two points of view, in a republican form of government, a law which aims to restrict the rights of the citizen by regulating his individual daily existence is an anomaly.

Its effect here would be to coerce about ninety-nine one-hundredths of the normally constituted members of the population into depriving themselves of an element of legitimate gratification in their daily lives for the purpose of attempting to uplift the one-hundredth of their brethren who are deficiently endowed, and that without any guaranty of being successful in the attempt.

I hold that much greater stress of circumstances or conditions is required to justify a law of such pronounced paternalism with any hope of its becoming effective.

Concerning the third guiding principle, that of past experience, I submit that if it tended to prove that total prohibition would effect, as the advocates of this bill fondly hope, the redemption of about 1,000,000 deficiently endowed men and women from the slough of degeneracy and misery that fact would constitute a strong reason for advocating the passage of this bill, and, in a great measure, would justify the demand that seventy-nine other millions of normally endowed people be deprived of the, to them, legitimate and innocuous indulgence for reasons of charity and general humanity. Unfortunately, in the light of past experience, the most sanguine of the advocates of this bill can not hope that any such result would be brought about.

I maintain that the evil resulting from the excessive use of alcoholic drink and its concomitant misery can and will be eliminated in the constantly operative process of the evolution of the human race, and that a drastic measure of governmental proscription of the fundamental right of individual self-determination-and that is what prohibition means-would prove ill-advised and futile. I thank you. STATEMENT OF FRITZ HENZLER, ESQ., OF NEW YORK CITY, N. Y.

Mr. HENZLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you will kindly excuse me if I do not use the proper expressions that it is the custom to use here. Of course I am a man of the sword and not of the tongue. I am an old soldier, and can only say what I believe and what I think.

I, as the delegate of the German soldiers and riflemen of New York, protest against all encroachments of personal liberty, no matter from whom they proceed. We believe that each and every man should have the right to do what he thinks is good; and we do not believe that the National Congress should make a law to prevent the use of alcoholic beverages. Just as well could they make a law against the use of candy, because we think that candy is a cause of great distress to the people. Candy makes dyspepsia. Alcohol, used in a moderate way, does not. Candy does. Candy spoils the lives of the children, because they are dyspeptic before they arrive at an age to be useful to the community. They are already ill. My doctor says: "Forbid

your children to use candy." I do not give my children any candy, and I will not permit them to use it. I do not give them any liquor either. Still, I will not have any objection if they drink a glass of beer occasionally.

If Congress should pass a prohibition bill in a temperance State to fulfill its own ideas, it would without doubt be an encroachment of the personal liberty, and everything that is an encroachment will bring the people to commit crimes. For an illustration, you will please permit me to tell you what I saw last summer in Europe. I traveled through France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, and a part of Austria. I saw in Frankfort-on-the-Main-I do not know the English name of the place-250,000 people in what they call the Frankfort City Park, where they were at liberty to drink all they pleased, and in all those 250,000 people I did not see one man or woman drunk. I traveled all over Europe last summer, and I did not see as many as ten or fifteen people drunk. In Maine, where they do not give out any licenses, I have seen people drunk on Sundays and on work days. Where did they get it? They got it in places where it was forbidden to get it. Give the people the liberty they want and they do not want it; and we, the German soldiers and sharpshooters of New York, protest against all encroachments of liberty, and we therefore beg you not to pass this bill.

In regard to the bill of Mr. Williams, I have this to say: He says that there shall not be any liquor brought to any temperance State C. O. D. in original packages. Suppose a man sends his money over to a factory or to a salesman in Chicago, and those goods arrive at his city or in his town and the bottle or jug is broken. I do not believe, if it is only an accident, that the manufacturer will give him another jug of whisky or another bottle of wine or anything of that kind. I think he will have litigation, and he is liable to be out of his money; and for that reason I am against this bill, too. We Germans are against any encroachment, it makes no difference what it is; and we beg you not to pass this bill.

Thank you for the kind hearing you have afforded me.

STATEMENT OF ADOLPH TIMM, ESQ.

Mr. TIMм. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I had the pleasure of submitting my views on the Hepburn-Dolliver bill at the last hearing. I only beg to add that we have received a great number of letters from different parts of the country in which the writers state that not only are they against the passage of the Hepburn-Dolliver bill, but, as far as they know, so are the great majority of the people of the States and of the cities in which they live. Furthermore, we have received from our western branches letters and dispatches in which they say that the time has been too short to make up delegations for this hearing, and for that reason they ask this honorable committee for another hearing and perhaps a little more time to make arrangements for sending delegations.

Mr. HEXAMER. That is all; thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the reason that our western people would like to be heard on this question, Mr. Chairman, I again beg that the committee will extend to us the courtesy of being heard a month from now, when we can have our people here.

(The committee thereupon adjourned.)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., March 6, 1906.

The committee met this day at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John J. Jenkins in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready, gentlemen, to proceed this morning?

Rev. S. E. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, by an arrangement with the other side, the understanding is that the other side shall be heard first for a little while.

The CHAIRMAN. That is agreeable to you?

Mr. CHARLES J. HEXAMER, of Philadelphia, Pa., president National German-American Alliance. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How much time will you gentlemen take?

Mr. HEXAMER. If you gentlemen will allow us, we will throw ourselves entirely upon the courtesy of the other side.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I think a half hour or three-quarters of an hour is enough for each side.

Mr. HEXAMER. Very well. Now, Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in introducing first the Rev. C. A. Voss, of Pittsburg.

STATEMENT OF REV. CARL AUGUST VOSS, PASTOR OF THE GERMAN EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CHURCH, PITTSBURG, PA.

Mr. Voss. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, permit me to preface my remarks by stating that I personally do not use any intoxicating liquors in any form, so that my appearance before this committee in opposition to this bill may not be construed as having even the slightest of personal motives.

I appear before you to-day as the pastor of the oldest religious society in the Allegheny Valley, oldest without regard to nationality or denomination, a congregation which has always taken a decided position in the interest of liberty in every department of life, battling for freedom of thought, conscience, and action, contending that only thus can the true character of man be elevated and strengthened. Thus in my official capacity I stand here as a champion of personal liberty.

But primarily I present this argument to you to-day as the representative of the German-American National Alliance of Western Pennsylvania, an organization comprising more than 150 separate societies, having a joint membership exceeding 23,000 citizens. These German-Americans have come from a land where freedom dwells in the hearts of men, but dares not always express itself in words and deeds. Hoping to find an abode of freedom where the craving of their hearts could be satisfied and the yearning of their souls be stilled, they came to this country, and here have proved themselves the stanchest supporters of our country's institutions, the most devoted to its ideals, and the most jealous of its privileges.

From the very inception of our national existence these GermanAmericans have formed the backbone of our nation. Since Steuben and his associates gave wise counsel to the immortal Washington up to the present era, wherever questions of vital importance to the life, welfare, integrity, and progress of the nation were at issue the