Washington sentinel., 1900-06-09
The Brosius Bill.

passage Of the Brosius Pure Food
bill:
The advocacy by the brewers Of the
Brosius or Mason pure food and drink
bills is not difficult to understand. The
belief that the majority OF the beers
brewed IN this country are ANYTHING but
pure beer is general. This belief has
created general public distrust in the
purity of ALL American beers. That
distrust has to be removed, or the
American brewing industry must in the
long run suffer severely. The brewers
know that as we'll as other intelligent
observers
AS concession to public clamor pure
beer legislation has been proposed IN the
various States Of tile Union as we'll as in
the Congress OF the United States, and
number OF so called pure beer bills have
been introduced in the Legislatures OF
many States within the last lew years
If there is any such belief abroad
as that the maj ority of the beers
brewed in this country are any
thing but pure beer, it has not
reached here yet. And that brew
ers concede the existence Of such
belief, and tor this reason favor a
Pure Food law in order to explode
- - eartos,,1sy =, eutc
The SENTINEL claims to be in
touch with brewers and TO have
received as many expressions Of
opinion on this subject as any
paper-trade or other-and from
our correspondence with brewers
we are prepare j to say that there
is no demand for the enactment OF
this law on such grounds. 1t may
be said that admission OF the man
utacture Of impure beer could not
be expected from any member Of
the trade. On the contrary, we
are OF opinion that were such a
thing true, a sense Of right would
overcome professional courtesy
and open accusation would follow,
To be sure, there are brewers
who use only malt and hops; and
there are others who, to satisfy a
public demand for lighter bever-
ages, cater to this demand by the
use OF other cereals. Because beer
is advertised as made of malt and
hops exclusively, should not at all
be construed as reflection upon
the product of those breweries that
use other ingredients. Where pure
food legislation has been urged
by brewers to our knowledge it
has been with a view to designating
by label or otherwise-the dit
ferent makes OF beer; as bread is
distinguished as wheat or rye-but
all bread. Such designation i'm
putes impurity in an article no
more than the Bottled in Bond"
label upon a bottle Of whisky i'm
putes impurity to such as does not
bear that legend. This however is
a brewers question, and they are
competent to handle 1t.
Brewers are opposed 10 the
Brosius bill, and their objection to
it is based upon ample grounds.
Brewers object to tn. Brosius bill
because it makes the Secretary OF
Agriculture a Car, as the Vine
and Spirit Gazette says, with i'm.
perialistic powers over the COM
merce in food and drink products. "
They are unwilling that a Sec
retary OF Agriculture should have
the power to FIX a standard for
their product, even though he may
be assisted by a committee Of chem
lists and physicians, all Of whom. in
cluding the Secretary himself, may
be rank prohibitionists, and not
one OF whom need necessarily $50
far as the bill is concerned) be a
| practical brewer. If it was inten-
ded to have a fair Investigation
provision would certainly have
been made for brewers represen-
tative upon the consulting board.
The bill is, and should be, OBJ
| jectionable on other grounds.
While it gives the Commissioner
power to fix a standard, there is
nothing in the bill which makes
that standard permanent. Com
missioners OF Agriculture are
changed frequently, and there is
no guarantee that the standard
fixed by one would be binding on
his successor. There is therefore
the possibility that we would have
new standard Tor beer with every
new Commissioner. Is this a
! pleasing prospect for brewers2
The bill is too loosely drawn.
There are too many loopholes
which may hereafter be made in
struments OF persecution for the
brewers. Brewers have no objec-