that clothes should be confined to the skin of animals because historically clothes originally consisted of the skins of animals. Senator BAILEY. Whisky is not always made of grain. Senator OVERTON. Then historically we get back to grapes instead of grain. Senator CLARK. It is brandy that the Senator is referring to. That is a well-recognized distinction at the present time. There is a distinction between whisky and brandy. Senator KING. Camphor originally was a product of trees. Camphor today is a synthetic product, and yet the same word is used. Camphor, as I understand, describes a synthetic camphor that was formerly grown on trees, in the early days. Senator OVERTON. It may be very true historically that alcohol originated with grapes and then it continued through the distillation of grain. Senator CLARK. That definition was held to be a legal definition in Presdent Taft's administration, was it not? Senator OVERTON. I do not know whether it was held to be a legal definition or not. Senator CLARK. It was held so by Executive order? Senator OVERTON. I assume that President Taft, in giving this definition, was simply designating the principal source from which our alcohol or whisky was manufactured. Now, it seems to me that the only defense to the Murphy amendment would be to show that alcohol produced from any other source than grain is impure. I am interested in this legislation, as the Senator from Louisiana, because I believe my State is very much interested in the production of sugar cane from which molasses is produced, out of which alcohol is manufactured. Senator BAILEY. The liquor that they make from Irish potatoes is called what? Senator BARKLEY. I think that is called vodka. Senator MURPHY. That is called poteen or mountain dew. Senator OVERTON. I will, later on in the statement I am making, give you the different products from which alcohol is presently manufactured. Senator BAILEY. If liquor is made from molasses would you object to putting that fact on the bottle, that it is made from molasses? Senator OVERTON. Legislatively? Senator BAILEY. Yes. Senator OVERTON. I think the regulations now promulgated by the Federal Alcohol Administration cover the case. They do state that they are manufactured from cane products. I want to present a statement of Mr. Robert L. O'Brien, Chairman of the United States Tariff Commission, in a letter addressed to me dated February 13, 1936: In accordance with the telephone request received from your office, I have made inquiry in regard to the differences between alcohol produced from grain and that produced from molasses. Alcohol produced from either source is technically the same ethyl alcohol and made to meet the requirements of the United States Pharmacopoeia. There may be slight differences in the minute traces of impurities, however, which are found in the alcohol from the two materials. In highly rectified grades the difference cannot be detected by chemical means, but might be detected by the sense of smell. The Commission does not have any information to indicate that when consumed in beverages there are any differences in the physiological effects. Now, there is a statement of the Chairman of the United States Tariff Commission to the effect that alcohol produced from either molasses or grain is technically the same, and the alcohol produced from molasses has no deleterious effect. Here is a statement from Mr. W. V. Linder, Chief, Laboratory Division of the Treasury Department [reading]: Subject, distinction between molasses alcohol and grain alcohol. Modern distillation and rectification practice has attained such a high degree of refinement that the resulting alcohol is recovered with only extremely minute traces of the original congenerics. Molasses alcohol which has been highly rectified or purified cannot be distinguished by any known chemical tests from grain alcohol which has been similarly rectified and purified. Therefore, in the olden times to which Senator Murphy refers, it might have been very proper that alcohol should be manufactured from grain, and alcohol manufactured from any other product was impure because science was unable, at that time, to manufacture it from any other source and get a pure product. But the statement of the chief of the Laboratory Division of the Department of the Treasury shows that alcohol produced from molasses is, today, just as pure as alcohol produced from any other source. Now, here also, to the same effect, is a letter from Mr. W. G. Campbell, chief, United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture. I quote from his letter: The response to your inquiry is that alcohol made from grain and alcohol made from molasses are, so far as we are aware, equally suitable for use in alcoholic beverages for human consumption, and the difference between them cannot be determined by any method of chemical analysis as yet generally available. Senator CLARK. What do they say about taste, Senator? Rum is made of molasses and some people like it, but it has a taste that is very reminiscent of hair oil to many people, and some people do not prefer the taste of hair oil. What about the taste of whisky as compared to the taste of rum? Senator OVERTON. As I understand the regulations of the Federal Alcohol Administration, the product must be labeled indicating the source from which it is made on the label. Alcohol, for instance, made from molasses would be indicated as a certain percent of it being made from cane products. Senator KING. I do not quite understand you, Senator. Are you contending that under the word "whisky" you may sell products made from cane without indicating the sources from which it comes? Senator OVERTON. No. As I understand these regulations-and I just glanced at them this morning-the regulations require that the source from which the alcohol is manufactured must be placed on each product. Senator KING. Well, under that regulation a bottle of liquor that had been made from cane products would have to state that; is that your idea? Senator OVERTON. That is the interpretation I place on it. Senator OVERTON. That is the interpretation that I place upon it. Senator KING. Then if that be true, if I understood Senator Murphy, he was willing that we might sell molasses whisky if it should be stated upon the label that it was the product of cane or molasses. Senator OVERTON. That is the regulation. Shall I repeat the regulation? Senator KING. I recall what you said about it. Senator OVERTON. Yes. Here is a statement by Mr. C. A. Browne, Acting Chief of Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, United States Department of Agriculture, and he states as follows: In the chemical sense, of course, the alcohol derived from either of these materials is identical, providing the distillate is subjected to the proper degree of fractionation. Under efficient conditions of fractionation, such as are obtained in the well-designed fractionating columns available today, it should be possible eventually to fractionate the product of fermentation of both molasses and grains so that no difference in the composition of the alcohol so derived could be detected. However, when less-efficient distilling columns are employed, there will be a difference in the composition of the alcoholic distillate obtained. This is due to the presence in the distillate of certain quantities of so-called congeneric substances. These substances, made up of acids, aldehydes furfural, ethers, and higher alcohols, will differ in composition, depending upon the type of mash from which they are distilled. Thus a fermented corn mash upon distillation will yield an alcoholic solution which will have a different flavor and aroma from that derived from a fermented molasses mash. It is from this property, of course, that whisky and rum derive the characteristics which differentiate them as potable liquors. The amount of congeneric substances present in distilled liquors varies considerably, but in any event they will always be characteristic of the mash from which they were distilled. Mr. Martin H. Ittner, chairman of the committee on industrial alcohol, American Chemical Society, states, as to the effect of Senator Murphy's amendment, that: This would have the effect of defining a well-known chemical body which may be and has been produced in a number of different ways, from a number of different raw materials, as necessarily derived from a single raw material. To do this would be to establish to some degree a precedent very inimical to our American chemical industry and might, therefore, at some time later prove to be very harmful to the chemical industry and to the public. One of the things that has been most helpful to progress in the chemical industry is the fact that many different chemical bodies, such as ethyl alcohol, can be produced in a number of entirely different ways from totally different raw materials, thus furnishing opportunity and encouragement to American chemists to undertake research work leading to the development of new methods of manufacture, opportunities to American manufacturers to find new ways to compete with old methods of manufacture, and benefit to the American public from the results of such new methods of manufacture. I quote from a letter from Mr. H. E. Howe, chairman of the industrial alcohol committee, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, in which he states: To those of us in the chemical industry it seems absurd to endeavor to define a perfectly well-known, easly identifiable, and definite chemical compound by the source or kind of raw materials from which it is made. We recognize, of course, that it is an effort to obtain an extensive market for one particular agricultural product, but this discrimination seems to us unwarranted and unsound. Here is a letter from the deputy commissioner, Mr. Stewart Berkshire, of the Treasury Department, in which he gives me tables with reference to the production of alcohol and different statistics in ref erence to alcohol for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1935. Table 6 shows that in the production of ethyl alcohol the materials used during the fiscal year 1935 was: From molasses, 187,722,553 gallons, representing 85.49 percent of the total production. Now, I will call attention of the members of the committee to this statement, that ethyl alcohol today is produced from molasses and from ethyl sulphate, from grain, from hydrol, from pineapple juice, from fermented liquor, and from mixtures of grain, hydrol, and molasses, and of the total production of alcohol of 320 million, in round figures, of 187,000,000, in round figures, is produced from molasses. Now, the reason possibly behind this amendment is that alcohol can be produced from molasses much cheaper than it can be produced from grain, and it results in a lowering of the price of alcohol. Mr. Robert L. O'Brien, chairman of the United States Tariff Commission, advises me in a letter dated February 13, 1936, as follows: These preferences are evidenced by the fact that at the present time 190 proof undenatured alcohol from grain is quoted at about 40 cents per gallon higher than the corresponding grade from molasses. Senator CLARK. How much higher, Senator? Senator OVERTON. Forty cents per gallon higher. What is the price per gallon; do you know? Senator CLARK. No. Senator OVERTON. Now, in view of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that alcohol is produced from other products than grain, that the alcohol so produced is chemically as pure, under modern methods of rectification, as alcohol produced from grain, why should there be any discrimination made in respect to alcohol that is produced from molasses and from other sources? Senator BAILEY. Is not the discrimination simply stating from what it is derived? Does not that cover it? Senator OVERTON. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit the sale of any neutral spirits, whisky, or gin, that is produced from anything else other than grain. Senator BARKLEY. It does not prohibit the sale of it, but it prohibits the sale of it as whisky, gin, or alcohol. You can find some other name for it. Senator OVERTON. You will have to find some other name. Senator BAILEY. Would you be satisfied if we called it whatever it was, if we named right on the label just how it is made? Senator OVERTON. Yes; that we make it from cane. We have got that today. We say "cane production" or "grain production", or whatever source it was made from. Senator BAILEY. You do not object to that? Senator OVERTON. No; I do not object to that. Senator BARKLEY. You contend that it is the regulation now? Senator OVERTON. I contend that is the regulation now. In other words, I am perfectly willing that you keep in the law the requirement that is now prescribed by the Federal Alcohol Administration. Now, I just want to put in the statement made by the American Pharmaceutical Association in a letter addressed to Senator King under date of February 11, 1936, of which a copy was forwarded to me by the Secretary. I quote as follows: The United States Pharmacopoeia defines alcohol synonyms ethanol, ethyl alcohol, spiritus vini rectificatus, for medicinal purposes, as "a liquid containing not less than 92.3 percent by weight, corresponding to 94.9 percent by volume, at 15.56° C, of C2H.OH", and gives appropriate descriptions and tests for its identity, purity, and strength. It does not, however, restrict the source, of alcohol and it is our conviction that any attempt to restrict the source of such a necessary basic chemical material is highly undesirable. Senator KING. Congressman Dirksen wanted a few moments, and we will hear him now. STATEMENT OF HON. EVERETT M. DIRKSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. DIRKSEN. Senator King, and members of the committee, I deeply regret I could not come before your committee this morning, but I was tied up in the Judiciary Committee on the House side. I desire to testify on the so-called Murphy amendment, dealing with grain and blackstrap. I do not know to what effect those gentlemen testified, and perhaps I have some notions altogether different. My opinion in the matter, of course, has been one of rather long standing, and is fortified somewhat by the fact, first of all, that I have a Corn Belt constituency; and, secondly, we manufacture a lot of grain whisky in my district, which comprises Peoria and Pekin, Ill. As we consider that blackstrap amendment, we have in mind the general promises we made in 1932 when the prohibition issue began to crystallize, and we went to the country promising the farmers if they would support repeal it would enlarge their grain consumption and we would protect them. We made all sorts of promises on both sides of the fence, and I was one of those, as well as others. That is one thing which is indisputable. Secondly, we came along with the farm program, and the program to get rid of surplus agricultural products, and the Soil Conservation Act, which was aimed directly at solving the surplus problem. There you have the meat of the coconut. So far as blackstrap is concerned, if we permit sizable quantities of blackstrap to come in from offshore islands, it is in direct competition with our grain. Senator BAILEY. How about our native cane? Mr. DIRKSEN. As to our native cane, I will say we do not have nearly enough blackstrap molasses from our native cane to satisfy the needs of the manufacturers of mixed feed. Senator BAILEY. It is not used in liquor? Mr. DIRKSEN. No; it is used in mixing dry feeds, such as cut alfalfa, and others. Senator BAILEY. It is used in rum, too? Mr. DARKSEN. Surely, but we do not have nearly enough for our own purposes, from the domestic supply, and some has to be imported. |