Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-06-30


the making of beer and wine, by his
imperial grace.
Now let those Democrats who for
years have been labelling the Repub-
lican party the party of booze"
come forward and explain. The
President has had his opportunity to
rid the country of the curse of drink
and he has failed to grasp it. Let
us hear no more pratings of Demo-
Gratis on the prohibition question.
The leader of their party has spoken
and few Of, them will have the tenn
Gritty to say to him what they would
had he been of the opposing party.
Says the President. the conserva-
ton of food is the greatest problem
of the day, and in the same breath,
'let beer and wine continue to be
made"
The making of beer, according to
the Brewers Year Book, requires
the toll of $4,000 farmers for six
months to furnish the foodstuffs
necessary for the annual output of
beer. If the labor of these men could
be diverted so that the grain and
other products raised for the liquor
industry were to be used for food in
stead of liquor it would relieve the
situation produced by the present
scarcity of food.
This would be the indirect benefit
of wartime prohibition, but if it be
said that the barley on hand would
be wasted did it not go into beer,
the statement of Herbert C. Hoover,
food expert, before the Senate COM
mittee of agriculture few weeks
ago, may be quoted. He said;
Barley mixed in bread
makes a bread which mas as me
would enable us to release just
exactly that quantity OF wheat
There is a certain deduc-
tion from the barley-the total
barley used in brewing-to ac-
count for the malt which is given
back to the feed, but even then
there is a large margin of saving
If the brewing could be cut out.
The difference between
the feeding value and the fodder
and the intake of the brewery in
grain means just that much more
food stuffs to our allies.
We could save from fifty to sixty
million bushels of grain on the
brewing side. after having al
lowed 1Or Ine lOuueT pIOpOSllluil,
and that grain is of utmost value
to our allies.
Or, If that be deemed insufficient
argument against the use of grain in
booze" at a time when the world
is nearing the starvation point, the
opinion of Prof. A. f. Taylor, pro-
fessor of physiological chemistry at
the University of Pennsylvania, and
crop expert for the Department of
Agriculture, may be of some value.
Prof. Taylor says:
In my opinion, on the basis of
crop prospects. the need of grain,
and especially barley, which has
proved itself valuable as a flour
is such as to make 1t imperative
upon us after the present malt
ings in operation and under con-
tract have been concluded, in
about three months. to cease the
manufacture of malt for internal
or export trades for brewing.
Thus it may be seen that the food
question and the beer question are so
closely allied that they cannot be
separated.
We have been asked to eat less
grain and less bread, in order that
the food supply shall be conserved.
The President wills that the supply
of beer shall be unlimited The result
will be that there will be no saving
of grains, for the non-drinker will
refuse to deny himself and his chill
dren the grain products and the
bread they demand in order that his
neighbor who drinks may have an
unlimited supply of beer. The alb
stainer will not deny his stomach
bread that his neighbor may take a
bath in beer, If he is so minded.
For one thing. however, we may