Evening star., 1941-04-08
Says Liquor Industry
Welcomes Restraints.
To the Editor of The g

To the EDITOR OF Inc Star.
The attitude which you express in
your recent editorial "Stand-up Drink
ing is one which is held by many who
are sincerely wet as well as probably
most of those who are sincerely dry.
Many engaged in the alcoholic beverage
business share your views on the evils
attendant upon and resultant from
drinking at bars.
The recommendation for this change
In the alcoholic beverage control law
was inserted in the recently acted upon
program only after such change had
been urged before a congressional COM
mittee by Chief of Police Ernest w.
Brown, an ardent churchman and
recognized dry advocate. Subsequently,
the Federation of Citizens Associations
gave it's approval to drinking at bars
and I do not believe that the Federation
could properly be labeled a wet organi-
zation even though it has recently, for
some unknown reason, opposed certain
restrictions on the liquor trade.
I do not think, therefore, that it is
quite fair to place the blame for the
progress which the bar proposal has
made upon the industry.
AS the chairman of the Beverage
Industry Committee which is endeavor-
ing to correct conditions within the
trade in order that our business may
be less subject to public criticism, am
particularly disturbed at the following
observation in your editorial: The
powerful local liquor industry, and a
wet and compliant Liquor Board have
made Washington one of the wettest
cities in the country with the assistance
of every device known to man to en-
courage and increase the consumption
of Intoxicating liquors"
I fear that in your Indignation at the
possibility of the return of the bar (an
indignation which, as I say, is shared
by manv in the industry you, for the
moment, overlooked the many highly
restrictive proposals which the trade
sought to have the A. B. c. Board and
the District Commissioners adopt. Some
of these were turned down outright
SuilSio WClC DdOly ilIdlISlCQ dIlu bllCll
possible effect vitiated
Let me cite the induStry's unanimous
backing for the proposal for a 600-foot
protective zone around churches, schools,
Fairgrounds, etc. This was reduced to
400 feet by the Commissioners and lin
tied to churches and schools after one
member of the board had opposed any
such action. The industry initiated and
backed strongly the movement to curtail
signs to 10 square feet and this was
finally approved by the Commissioners
after more than year of such advocacy
The industry fought for the curtailment
OF all types of advertising. But the wet
and compliant A. B. c. Board and the
Commissioners, backed by the Federation,
refused to adopt our proposal to elimi-
nate all prices In advertising. They
adopted our request for a regulation
eliminating handbills, but I fear that
this will be Ineffective, as it certainly
is unfair, without the restriction on
price advertising.
The industry initiated and supported
the movement for 10 o'clock closing of
all package stores, which was adopted.
1t urged the reduction in the size of
booths in on-sale establishments (modi-
fed by the Commissioners.
There are other proposals which have
come from the industry, all restrictive,