The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1877-06-07
THE beer War!
THE ASsIGNEES OF WEBER'S BREW
ERY CONCENTRATE BACKWARDS
THEY DON'T STICK TO 1T,
AND USE POOR EXCUSES
TO QUIET THE PEOPLE

In Yesterdays and to-day's Cincinnati pa
pers was a reply signed by Messrs. Pfau ana
Starbuck, assignees OF Mr.. George Weber, to
our .sCard to the Beer Consuming People"
in Tuesdays papers. 1t is well known to
US that all public communications
about the extent and management OF q certain
business, you NAV look at the matter as you
please, never bring any advantage, and the
public can rest assured that it is only with re-
sistance, and somewhat forced, we argue this
point. II they say, in yesterdays "eper COM
munication, "Since the brewers, WITHOUT
pRoyCCATIoN ON OUR PART, have brought this
subject before THE public" it is our duty to Or
der back such insnuation as decidedly as pos
siblo. Not WE commenced this pubic coh'ro-
yersy, but SO did the managers OF Wepers
brewery by their unfair provocatlon Whlch
was contained in their communication IN sun
davis papers. This provOCat1on attacked tne
HONOR OF the other Cincinnati brewers, ana II
these gentlemen are now trying 10 put tne
blame on us, as il we were the beginners VI
this controversy, ii only shows thelr very un-
fair way Of Intentionally misrepreseh1eii;s III
facts, which was proved again IN yesterdays
proclamation. --,
A fer these personal and nee Cessary remarks,
1t is our duty now to submit this procehaoloil
itself to close criticism. For the nrst we afe
told that their first proclamation was made on
applicatlon OF one Of their MAIN AGENTS AT THE
SOUTH "a fact not mentioned IN tnelr nrst
communication) In some respects tney arc
irving to excuse themselves. but those excuses
are too thin; for il their agent, 10 prove NE
application, send them copies OF SOUTHERN
papers, it would have been logically rlght &c
publish his communication in said SOUTHERN
Diapers, and a publication in CINCINNATI pa
pers would only then have been falr IL tht
Southern agent wou Id have asked ior IL, any
this pushing forward OF their southern aHeh'
as scape- goat looks very queer.
10 20 further in our Critlc'sm OF yesterday
| "proclamation," it is worthy to note the re-
nIarkable difference Of the tone in their re-
snectiye tproclamations." The "proclama-
lion" of Sunday is provoking and oppressive
and every impartial reader must have 1ounC
ont that this communication was only written
to praise Weber's beer, while running doWI
the other Cincinnati brewers. The Whoie
proclamation, gathered In one sentence, reao
as follows:
Of using poisonous drugs and cheap articles II
the manufacture of their beer. WE don't a
such things - but" -.
This was, in short words, the contents OF tn
proclamation in last Sundays paper AM
| every body we meet since this time understoo
1t in this manner 1csIeruay Vho B Sn'loHo
| suddenly changed their opinion, and they trle
| to yindicate the matter, make poor jokes owe
| an indignation meeting, and they are trying Z
signify all the positive insults with which the
treated us in their hrSt procla
nation as fully harmless, ana nc
worth to attend them. That would not d.
gentlemen, because the proVocatlng insult
| are made, and can not simply be taken ava
| by poor jokes. 1t is not OUR business TO R!Dl
GUILE the matter then for this purpose. In
| 49,, Ic too a
important, and if the gentlemen think they ca
turn OFF the attention OF the people from TN
important fact, they Will find 1T out that the
can not prosl er.
We were little astonished to remark tht
in the second proc Iamation there was abst
llutely not one word about the poisonous al
tlcles," nux vomica, coculus lndlcus. &C
which have such prominent place In the
first proclamation; the gentlemen nave rt
treated from this position, and connneu tnen
selves especially TO give RELIEF to lhe "chea
articles" as corn, rice. grape sugar, &c.
This backward concentrating is very r.
markable, anu shows very clearly now Wea
and poor the position is the gentlemen take
this controversy; but the main difference
the tone and contents OF botn OF these proofs
nations is founded in the fact that they
their first proclamation only defend Web +
Beer. while in the second proclamation TIM
act as defenders Of WcbcI's and all the 9th
rure beers 1--WE claim the Weber beer and
all pure DcClJl duu hSlO r.
lies II there was in the first proctamatl'
only a soft intInation that they would ASST
the Cincinnati beer for the general, NOBODY
ma would nave lost word about that cas-
Int the manner in which the gentlemen ON
! nav attention to Webcr's beer was Tor
= the stumbling block, and just that is t
f reason it was our duty to give an energe1
, protest against this comprehension. n
| ihe rest we use this opport
nifty, having explained our situation
this question, to remark that we after this W
l not continue the controversy. Mr.. Starbu
NAV be q good editor, and Mr.. Pau go
whisky manufacturer, but we don't think no
OF them are com petent to give any judgment
, our business, the beer brewing.
y GAMBRINUS STOCK COMPANY
SIEHAUS & KLINKHAMER,
SCHALLER & GERkE,
{. WINDloCu, MUlILHAU5ER II 90
JOHN KAUFMAN,
8 HAUCk h WlNDlSCH,
Il HERMAN LACKMAN,
ross, SCHNEIDER & BRENNER,
JOHN SCHlfF, Assignee Of Weyand
GEO M' HERANCOURT,
: Z. KINSINGER, Assignee OF Klotte
9 Sons,
j. G. SOHN b CO.,
:, C. MOERLkIN,
SCHMIDT & BRO.
+ CINCINNATI, June g 1871. !