borrows an established audience, gets over his message quickly, before the listener gets up the energy to turn it off.

In this quotation you will note the claim that radio advertising "is a good medium for putting over educational propaganda"; for "encouraging increased consumption"; for "implanting an idea and building up wants and desires"; for forcing listeners to get rather long commercials "whether they want to or not."

May I add some other testimony right at that point, sir? In a local option campaign in Tarrant and Dallas Counties, Tex., there was a newscast sponsored by the breweries, that extended over a period of time, and had built up a popular listening audience.

When the local option campaign came on, the forces in favor of banning the sale of alcoholic beverages were sold time on the radio, but the breweries came in on this built-up established audience, bought at a reduced rate because of frequency discounts, and put on their campaign, which, of course, put the dry forces at an unfair disadvantage.

Then, in this same testimony of mine, on page 4, I want to give you another concrete example of brewery propaganda broadcast under the name of advertising.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is that all covered in the hearings which have been printed, and which have to do with the Capper bill? Mr. MORRIS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to curtail you in your presentation, but I do repeat that I hope we can avoid duplication of testimony. Mr. MORRIS. It will largely be different, sir; just these few items that I felt were basic in what I had to say to you this morning.

On Monday night, June 24, 1946, over KMOX of St. Louis, owned and operated by the Columbia Broadcasting System, on a program sponsored every night by the Falstaff Brewing Co., this was broadcast. First, I think it might be well to explain that a little over a year ago when people were starving in Europe, the Government prohibited the use of wheat in the making of beer. In the preceding 5 months-September, October, November, December, and Januarythe breweries had used a total of 27,937,798 pounds of wheat in beer production. When that curtailment came in, the brewers objected.

Now, in this advertising program, here is what went out over KMOX for several nights. I recorded it for several nights, and have it from the record:

If your dealer says "sorry, no beer" please don't feel that he is holding out on you. Remember there has been a drastic cut in all beer production. Originally it was thought that this would be a way to save wheat, but as everyone knows today no wheat is used in making beer and so besides your hard-put dealer who has less beer when you want it, the Government gets less of those taxes beer pays for the country's benefit; working people have fewer jobs; the farmer gets less of beer's wonderful high protein byproducts for stock and poultry raising. While present conditions prevail, your dealer can only ask you to bear with him, and remember-no wheat is used, no wheat it needed in the making of beer.

Now, we submit, in our written statement, four reasons which I will briefly call to your attention, why we think this alcoholic beverage advertising should be eliminated from the radio.

In the first place, it is unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages to minors and little children anywhere in the United States. You cannot confine radio broadcasting to adult audiences. We believe it is

unsafe and unsound to build up desires and wants in children for a product which it is unlawful for them to purchase.

In the second place, there are vast areas scattered all over the United States composing nearly a fifth of the Nation, where the people under local option, after elections, have returned to prohibition and do not permit the sale of these alcoholic beverages even to adults.

For example, that is true in the entire State of Kansas, in your entire State of Oklahoma, Senator Moore, in the entire State of Mississippi, all of northern Texas, 86 of 95 counties in Tennessee; in these areas they prohibit the sale of wine that is advertised over the radio.

Then take, for example, our State of Texas. One hundred thirty nine entire counties prohibit by law the sale of alcoholic beverages. There are 120 counties in Kentucky, of which 92 prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. There are 67 counties in the State of Georgia that do not permit the sale of any kind of alcoholic beverage. There are 52 of the 83 counties in Mississippi that do not permit the sale of any alcoholic beverages.

And that is true of 47 of the 67 counties in Alabama, 34 counties in Arkansas, 16 parishes in Louisiana. And then, in States like your State of Maine, Senator White, they do not have county-wide local option, but have it on the basis of towns, districts, and political precincts.

In Illinois there are over 1,000 such subdivisions, with practically 2,000,000 people living in them, in which the sale of these beverages is illegal; in the State of Pennsylvania there are 650 such subdivisions; in Ohio 450; in Wisconsin 340; in your own State of Maine over 300; in New Hampshire 120; in Vermont 100.

And there are many others scattered in various sections of the Nation.

Now, then, you cannot confine radio law to State lines and community sections. We believe it should not be lawful to advertise a product which it is unlawful to sell, in such large areas across the Nation.

Now, the suggestion was raised: Well, why not confine this to that area where it is illegal? Well, that would not solve our problem, due to this fact: Take, for example, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, an area with some 6,000,000 people, where wine cannot be bought. But in Lincoln, Nebr., on the north, is KFAB, a 50,000-watt Columbia outlet. Then there is KMBC in Kansas City, a 5,000-watt Columbia outlet, with a directional antenna that throws a wave right down across Oklahoma and Kansas.

They cover that entire section with wine advertising, and you cannot keep it out by confining the prohibition to the area in which it is located.

Take another example: In North Carolina the law provides there shall be no advertising of alcoholic beverages by radio stations in North Carolina when the program originates in the State. But your network programs do not originate in the State. They originate up in New York and out in Hollywood, Calif., and out in Chicago, and they come in from the other States. And then North Carolina is

looped in by stations in adjacent States that cover the State with that advertising.

Now, the third reason that we advance is that it is an established and well-known fact, reinforced by Supreme Court decisions, and by all law, that alcoholic beverages are a product impregnated with possible danger to the individual, and to the public as a whole, to such an extent that even in areas where it is sold, the sale of that product is restricted by various limitations and prohibitions. You cannot sell it on Sunday. You cannot sell it on election days. You cannot sell it to minors. And there is every other sort of a restriction.

It is also an established and well-known fact that alcohol is a habitforming narcotic, a drug, a poisonous drug that poisons the brain, retards muscular reactions, and releases inhibitions. The drinking of these beverages in moderation at first has ultimately led to alcoholism and death for countless thousands of people. Several thousand people are killed every year in traffic accidents involving drinking drivers and drinking pedestrians, according to the National Safety Council.

So that the manufacture, sale, and distribution of this product is not like the manufacture, sale, and distribution of potatoes and shoes and sugar and chewing gum and ice cream and candy. And since it is different, the people should be informed, when they are urged to buy it, that they are buying a different product.

But you never hear any caution on these advertisements. You never hear any hint that homes have been wrecked by the use of it, that serious accidents have been caused on the highways. They play up only one side: That it is socially extremely advantageous to use it and drink it and make life complete.

We believe that the sales presentation of a product potentially harmful without cautioning the public, is against the best interest of the public, and therefore we recommend this bill.

And now, Senator, we come to the meat in the coconut. We have listened for over a week to the representatives of the radio industry and the radio organization who have come before your committee. And with unanimous voice they have loudly proclaimed how perfectly fair and equitable they were in presenting both sides of controversial public questions, and that sections 15, 16, and 17 should not be a part of this bill. May I remind you of the statements of a few of these men Kobak, president of Mutual, said:

The general practice within the entire industry is to lean over backward in attempting to present all substantial facts of questions of public importance.

WGN of Chicago is one of the outstanding stations of Mutual, and its management largely helps in the governing of Mutual. We have been to WGN time and time and time again to get them to sell us time to present the abstinence and prohibition view. They carry heavy beer and wine programs. They will not sell us 1 minute of time. Mutual, for 10 years has refused to provide any time, commercial or sustaining, to our forces, for the presentation of our view. And last year, Mutual sold nearly a half a million dollars worth of time to the wine advertisers of this country.

All right. Mr. Mark Woods, of the American Broadcasting Co., in his testimony, said:

The industry has set an outstanding record of fairness in its allocation of time for the presentation of all sides of controversial questions without being required to do so by a statute otherwise than by the test of public interest. In the light of its record, I see no practical reason for incorporating section 315 in the act.

When the Blue network became the American Broadcasting Co., great advertisements were put in all of the press of the Nation, lauding free speech. I wrote Mr. Mark Woods a personal letter and reminded him of the wide advertisement of alcoholic beverages over his network, and asked if he would sell us time to present our side. He never answered the letter.

A year ago, I sent an advertising representative to New York at my expense, who carried surveys of my program on the Louisville station, showing its popularity with listeners. Sixty-two percent of all sets in the rural area and 42 percent of those in the metropolitan area were tuned to my program. He listened and said he would write. The man wrote him, and he did not answer that communication. Mr. Niles Trammell of NBC had this to say:

It is the policy of the National Broadcasting Co., as it is of other broadcasters, to permit the use of its facilities for discussions of public and controversial issues. Every effort is made to afford a fair and equal opportunity for the presentation of different views.

Several years have elapsed since I first went to NBC to try to get time to represent our people. Last fall when they took the Pabst Blue Ribbon beer show, which is given every week for 40 minutes over NBC at 10:30 eastern standard time, I wrote to Mr. Trammell and said, "Now, you are carrying this commercial program, on which people are urged to buy, to serve, to drink, this alcoholic beverage. Will you tell us a period in the week when we can present the abstinence and prohibition views?"

The network wrote me back that they did not care to take on my program. Then, on January 17, I came to Washington and gave over NBC a sustaining program, which Mr. Niles Trammell, speaking to me out here at the hearing the other day, said was the time given to us to answer the beer advertisers.

But wait. Let us see about that. Every week they sell 30 minutes of choice time over a commercial network, where the network outlets are tied down, and it can be advertised in the papers that they are going to carry the programs at a certain time. They sell that time to those who advocate the drinking of alcoholic beverages, and seek to promote the interests of the industry. What did I get? I got a 15minute period at 10:45 at night, eastern standard time. Now, that would not have been bad, because in central standard it would be 9:45, at mountain time it would be 8: 45, and on the west coast 7:45. But wait a minute. My broadcast was a sustaining broadcast, and the outlet is not obliged to carry a sustaining program. When Mr. Trammell gave me this broadcast, I sent a copy of his telegram with a letter enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope to every outlet of NBC and asked them to let me know if they would carry the broadcast so that I could properly advertise it.

65141-47- -30

One-third of the outlets never answered my letter. Another third of them said, "Well, that is a good while off, a couple of months. We don't know whether we can carry it or not." KOA in Denver, Colo., owned and operated by the National Broadcasting Co., and which could put my program on at the time, wrote and said, "We will carry it as scheduled." I have the letter. But what happened? When I spoke here at 10:45 at night, practically every great station on eastern standard time carried it. But the moment that broadcast hit central standard time, it was eliminated, as a live program, from practically all the big stations.

WMAQ in Chicago did carry it. WSM, 50,000 watts at Nashville, did not carry it. WFAA at Dallas transcribed it, and played it back at night. The 50,000 watt station at Tulsa did not carry it. When it hit mountain standard time, and people were sitting there to hear this, another program came on without any explanation. People began to wire and phone and call me, and they wanted to know what was the matter.

I checked up. What happened? Two prominent outlets on mountain time, KOB in Albuquerque, and KOA in Denver, 50,000 watts, both transcribed and played it back at 10:45 at night. When it reached the west coast, with one exception it was transcribed on the major stations, and played back as late as 11:30 at night.

Now, Senator White, and members of this committee, is that a fair and equitable way to treat 35 or 40 million people who own homes and radio sets, and to whom these frequencies belong just as much as they belong to the advertisers of alcohol, and those who wish to consume alcoholic beverages legally?

Let us take another situation. I am happy to present this cause. We have not asked for any amount of time. We were ready, Senator. We have a complaint. And it is not the complaint of a few individuals. It is not the complaint of some man who is wild-eyed and fanatical and blue-nosed, and a long-haired crank. It is the complaint of millions of God-fearing, Christ-honoring, home-owning, family-loving citizens who have convictions as deep as any conviction of life, and don't want their little boys and girls to have to sit in their homes and listen to all of this one-sided play-up of alcoholic beverages and never be permitted to hear the other side on the air. We have tried to get the radio industry itself to correct its ways. We did not come to you first. We took it to the Federal Communications Commission.

Now, in that connection, a lot has been said in these hearings about the atheistic case out on the west coast and about the Mayflower case in Boston. The witnesses who have appeared have harangued at the FCC about this oversupervision of programs. They did not mention our case.

We took it to the FCC, and the FCC did not step in and exercise any undue control over program material. The FCC rendered its decision that in its opinion alcoholic beverage advertising was a species of propaganda, and in at least these big dry areas, it was a controversial public question.

Did that affect the industry? Not the least bit in the world. All of this talk by the leaders of the industry that the radio station managers suddenly became afflicted with heebee-jeebees and fear and