German-Americans have always been found on the side that labored for a better and a higher life. With such a proud record as our heritage we hold that our position entitles us to a consideration of our opinions on this important issue and thank the members of this committee for this opportunity of presenting our arguments.

It is not the judicial side of this question that concerns us to-day, for this is not within our province. To-day we desire to direct your attention to the relation which the import of this bill bears to the great privilege prized by us as German-Americans—the divine gift of personal liberty. We wish to impress upon you that a large quota of good, respectable, law-abiding, yea, Christian men and women, spread over this broad land, are most bitterly and most emphatically opposed to the enactment of such laws as this one-that would accomplish nothing, but further the demoralizing advance of prohibitory endeavors.

We German-Americans see in this legislation now presented for consideration an attack upon republican institutions and a menace to the welfare of the nation at large. We have a higher ideal than that which is represented by the desire for a glass of beer or a schoppen of wine. In a spirit of true sacrifice we are devoted to the preservation of that which makes our nation great, and therefore we protest against the enactment of any law which would, like this measure threatens to do, have in its wake an increase of the nefarious practice of smuggling, invite lawlessness, produce hypocrisy, militate against true temperance, and undermine civic virtue.

It is a notorious fact that wherever strict Sunday laws have been enforced and the common people deprived of their opportunity to enjoy lawfully on this one day of freedom from toil the social intercourse induced by the companionship over the glass of beer, "speakeasies" and other demoralizing games have been opened, and instead of consuming their beverages in a lawful manner and possibly in company of their families and thus promoting true temperance, these common people in their effort to secure that which they consider their rightful privilege are compelled to repair to the dens where the greatest intemperance is fostered and the accompanying vices nurtured. Wherever prohibition laws have been enacted and enforced honest people have become dishonest and temperate people intemperate, for the usual and the most natural result has been the illegal procuring not of malt beverages-which would be more dangerous of detection, on account of their bulk-but rather of strong alcoholic liquors, the constant use of which is followed by disaster, desolation, and often death.

Intemperance has always been a curse, and no nation recognizes this fact more clearly and condemns the intemperate more sternly than the nation to which not I, for I was born under the Stars and Stripes, but which my forefathers belonged. An intoxicated man is seldom seen on the streets of Germany, and he who practices intemperance is denounced and shunned by his fellow-man. Our devotion to the cause of true temperance and to all that furthers and secures the sanctity and purity of the heart and promotes the law and order in the State has become proverbial.

We are contending for the preservation of the divine right of personal liberty. In this country, over which the banner of freedom floats, the home ought always to be revered as hallowed ground and

the highways leading to that home as the nation's unassailable property. No matter how extensive the power delegated to the police department of any State within our borders, guardianship ought never to be exercised over the sane and intelligent citizens nor control be given over the private and domestic actions of those whose forefathers sought this land of freedom. As free and sovereign people we hold as unassailable our right to regulate our lives and our homes as we see fit so long as in so doing we do not conflict with the welfare of our fellow-men.

Because one person loses control over himself by becoming intoxicated is no justifiable reason for denying the use of spirituous liquors to such as know how to use them rationally. Abuse on the part of one never provides a cause for the condemnation of millions of innocents. Because in this conglomerate nation the representatives of one national extraction are unable to curb their appetites and to control their passions can not reconcile the innocent sufferers to the apparent necessity of the punishment of all. On the same principle we could argue, because money has been the cause of crime, as evidenced in a marked degree in the recent disclosures in the circle of high finance, therefore abolish the use of money. Let us rather seek to educate men of stamina, able to control themselves, not weaklings, who must be tied to mother's apron strings or soothed even in the days of supposed manhood and independence by infantile food.

Prohibition laws have called forth the ridicule of the nations which, though controlled by monarchical powers, would hesitate to arouse the ire of their subjects by thus attempting to deprive them of their privileges and humiliating them before the world. Legislation against the unrestrained use of opium, cocaine, and other drugs is justifiable and commendable, because these are poisons, but until you can prove to the satisfaction of intelligent, fair-minded, and unbiased men that beer, wine, and other mild spirituous beverages are poisonous in their effects when used rationally it would be an injustice to accede to the demands of a fanatical, narrow-gauged, and narrowminded minority, which fails to appreciate the joys of life.

We are clamoring for a principle which is dear to our hearts. The issue at hand is sufficiently important to arouse our indignation and decided opposition, even though it appears to some to be a mere bagatelle, for we look beneath the surface and recognize there an attempt to establish a precedent which would justify the enactment of such laws which would soon make freedom a sweet dream of the past. Our forefathers as well as ourselves have fought for religious, political, and personal freedom and have always been proud of the progress that we have achieved. To-day we appeal to you not to take a step backward by depriving your fellow-men of their private pleasures and their domestic joys, thus denying to the citizens of this nation the use of alcoholic beverages at their home table, the last place in the world where intemperance is fostered.

This measure is demoralizing, degrading, and humiliating, and its enforcement would surely frustrate the intentions of its supporters and produce what they least suspect, the terrible and deplorable conditions of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and immorality. It is an insult to the good judgment of sane and intelligent people and an attack upon the manhood of the citizens of this great and glorious Republic.

We hope that the gentlemen of this committee will be true to the

trust reposed in them and that the full light of reason shine upon their pathway, so that they may see the error of this measure and the serious dangers lurking among its results.

Mr. HEXAMER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. William Vocke, of Chicago, Ill.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM VOCKE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. VOCKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the Chicago branch of the German-American Alliance. Our objects are to cultivate the German language, the knowledge of which, the best scholars of America agree, is essential to the pursuit of all science. We believe that a sound mind can only be trained in a well-developed and healthy body, and we stand for those principles of personal liberty which have been the pride of the Teutonic race, of which the Anglo-Saxon is only a branch, ever since the dawn of modern civilization.

Otherwise I may truthfully say of myself what the gentleman who preceded me gave us to understand as to his position: I have no connection with a brewery or a distillery. I hold no mandate from a brewer or a distiller. I own no stock in a brewery or a distillery, and I have no retainer from the other side. I assert, therefore, that I am not interested and not related either by consanguinity or marriage to any one of the two parties to this controversy, but am here solely to represent the views of a modest American citizen without fear or bias, and as Abraham Lincoln said in his famous letter to Horace Greeley, that he wished all men to be free, so do I wish all men to be sober.

I want to preface my remarks on this subject by assuring you learned gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee that I have no intention to presume that I know more than you, or as much as you, about the constitutionality of this question. But permit me to remark that as I read this law yesterday-this proposed bill, I mean-it struck me that it contemplated something which can not be permitted under the Federal Constitution, because the Constitution says that Congress shall regulate the interstate commerce.

What is interstate commerce? Is it complete when you interrupt the shipment of an article of interstate commerce before it is delivered to the consignee? At the time it reaches the boundary of the State has Congress the right to allow it to be stopped in transition and to render the delivery imperfect?

As regards an article the shipment of which is not entirely prohibited as generally deleterious, the interstate commerce can not be crippled in that way to the injury of the parties concerned, because it is not interstate commerce until the goods in question pass from one State into the other unhindered, i. e., from the consignor into the hands of the consignee. If the goods shipped from Illinois, intended for a consignee in Iowa, can be seized by the police authorities of Iowa right at the boundary of the State, as it is contemplated by this bill, where is the interstate character of the shipment? But be that as it may, you gentlemen can grapple with all these questions very much better than I, and I understand there have been discus

sions before this learned body before in which that element has been thoroughly exhausted. I am therefore requested by the officers of the German-American Alliance to concern myself with the ethical side of this question rather than with the other.

Now, gentlemen, I maintain with Pastor Voss that this proposed legislation is vicious in the extreme. I believe I can illustrate this subject by giving you a few examples from my own experience, relating to the character of the very laws which this bill is designed to aid. It was about eighteen years ago, when I had to try a case in the circuit court at Iowa City, Iowa. It was a hot July day. I had exercised myself in my argument to the court and the jury for several hours and had become weary and thirsty. I want to be perfectly honest with you. I am 67 years of age. I have used beer and light wine to a moderate extent ever since I arrived at the age of manhood, and I have always, for forty years past, been considered a very excellent risk in the life insurance companies of this country, particularly in the Connecticut Mutual, the best in the world. The outcry against the moderate use of beer is unreasonable. The great German chemist, Liebig, calls beer liquid bread, and as to its health and strengthening qualities the equally great French scientist, Pasteur, fully agrees with him. But to return to my experience in Iowa City.

I had become quite exhausted in my efforts before the court, and I felt that I needed just one glass of beer. I said to my friend, a young lawyer who sat by my side, and with whom I had maintained quite a correspondence in the case, that I would like him to take me to some place where I could get some refreshment in the shape of a glass of beer. He said, "Oh, yes; that is all right. Let us go down the street." I had heard that Iowa had passed some very restrictive temperance measures, but I was entirely unfamiliar with the character of the legislation that had been enacted. So we walked down a few blocks and stopped in front of a store, the windows of which were covered with shutters.

My friend rapped at the door, which was locked on the inside, and it was opened by some one within. We entered and I expressed my desire to the host. He pointed me to a sign suspended from the center of the ceiling, and I read upon it these words: "No liquors sold except for sacerdotal, medicinal, or culinary purposes." I said to the host, "I do not want a glass of beer for sacerdotal purposes, because I am not a minister of the Gospel nor a hypocrite; I do not want it for medicinal purposes, because I am neither a doctor nor am I sick, and I do not want the beer for culinary purposes, because I am not a cook; but I am quite thirsty. Will you give me a glass of beer?" With that the host gave my friend a significant look, and we walked into the back room, and there the host brought out a bottle of Milwaukee beer with two tin cups and a corkscrew, and we sat down and each of us emptied a cup of that beer.

I say to you, gentlemen of this committee, and to you, ladies and gentlemen, who all, like myself, want to do the very best for the cause of temperance, that this incident was to me a source of deep humiliation, because I had then for the first time in my life willfully violated a law of a great State of this Union. I expressed my sentiments to my friend, who was in other respects a law-abiding and honorable citizen of the town. I said to him that I felt cheap and

66

mean for what I had done. But he answered with utter indifference, "Oh, that is nothing; that is done here every day. We are forced to do it; we are forced to break the law every day."

Is that wise legislation? I ask you, gentlemen, in all candor, is it proper that the great Government of the United States of America should lend its hand to the enforcement of such legislation? Have we not more important things to do than that? Are you gentlemen of this committee not charged with weightier problems than that? ·

Let me give you another example from my own State of Illinois, where I have lived nearly fifty years. Some years ago, in the fall, I had to try a case before Judge Eppler, in Petersburg, Menard County. When I was through with my labors I had the same desire for a glass of beer. The host told me I could not get it in town, because local option prevailed there, but that if I walked a mile down in a certain direction I would find a little place where I could get all the beer I wanted. It was a beautiful autumnal day, just such a day when you like to be out in the open fields and in the tinted woods, and I walked along, enjoying the air and the scenery.

After having traveled some distance I noticed a little house about half a mile farther away, from which loud noises reached my ear, and as I approached the premises they showed in their whole appearance that they had been improvised for the very purpose to which they were devoted. The house consisted of one small room, containing nothing but a rough counter, with a bulky man behind it, and a barrel of beer and some tin gallon measures at his side. The noise I had heard was created by the boisterous talk of a number of men— twelve or more-back of the house in an inclosure covered by a board fence as high as 6 feet. I asked the host for a glass of beer. He told me the law allowed him to sell beer only by the gallon. "A gallon!" I exclaimed, "Why, my small capacity does not hold onetenth part of that. I want a glass." He replied, "No; you must pay for a gallon if you want a glass, and you can not drink it on the premises here; you must drink it back there," pointing to the inclosure I have mentioned.

I was curious to see who the people were back there, and so I handed over to the host the price of a gallon of beer. When I reached the yard the filled gallon measure was placed before me with a cup. I had hardly sat down, in order to study the faces of the crowd, when I heard somebody cry out my name, with a friendly halloo, and as I looked around I recognized in this person who called me the sheriff of the county of Menard, who had served prcesses for me on the day before. I asked him about this most remarkable custom that prevailed in his bailiwick and which, in order to keep a man sober, forced him to buy a gallon of beer, while it denies him a glass, remarking that I felt like saying to its advocates what the old lady out West, in one of the great Emancipator's best anecdotes, said with indignation about her minister whose conduct was not entirely in harmony with his pious professions: "If you represent Christ, then I am done with the Bible." All the sheriff could answer was that the people would not tolerate any beer hall in town, no matter how respectable, and so they were driven to the suburbs, where they had to evade the law by drinking in the back yard, " away from the premises," and buying the beer wholesale.