The Project Gutenberg eBook of Beer, its history and its economic value as a national beverage
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Beer, its history and its economic value as a national beverage
Author: Frederick William Salem
Release date: June 10, 2025 [eBook #76262]
Language: English
Original publication: Hartford: F. W. Salem & Company, 1880
Credits: Peter Becker, A Marshall, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BEER, ITS HISTORY AND ITS ECONOMIC VALUE AS A NATIONAL BEVERAGE ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
A superscript is denoted by ^x, for example Gen^l.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the paragraph or table where they occur.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIATION.
_HENRY H. RUETER, Pres’t., Boston, Mass._
_J. AHLES, Treas., New York._ _R. KATZENMAYER, Sec’y., New York._
_H. CLAUSEN, Jr., Vice Pres’t., New York._]
BEER,
ITS HISTORY AND ITS ECONOMIC VALUE
AS A
NATIONAL BEVERAGE.
BY
F. W. SALEM.
[Illustration: (Decorative image)]
HARTFORD, CONN.:
F. W. SALEM & COMPANY.
1880.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1879, by
F. W. SALEM,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, Washington, D. C.
THE CLARK W. BRYAN COMPANY,
PRINTERS, ELECTROTYPERS AND BOOK-BINDERS,
SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
DEDICATION.
TO THE BEER BREWERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
Thinking as I do, that in the Beer Brewers of the United States we must
recognize real, though perhaps unconscious, promoters of the great
and glorious cause of genuine temperance, and that greater practical
results may be attained through their instrumentality than in any other
way, it seems fitting that this attempt to expound the true nature and
value of beer should be specially dedicated to them as a body, and
accompanied with the assurance of the author’s profound respect and
esteem.
FREDERICK WILLIAM SALEM.
HARTFORD, CONN., January, 1880.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE— 9
CHAPTER I—Preliminary view of the subject, 11
CHAPTER II—Early History of Beer, 16
CHAPTER III—Early History of Beer, continued, 30
CHAPTER IV—Modern History of Beer, 47
CHAPTER V—How Beer is made, and what it is, 60
CHAPTER VI—The development of ale, porter and lager beer, 68
CHAPTER VII—The condition and prospects of the beer trade, 74
CHAPTER VIII—Comparative advantages of Beer over distilled or
spirituous liquors, 84
CHAPTER IX—Beer brewing a benefit to farmers, 101
CHAPTER X—Prohibitory laws and their effects, 108
CHAPTER XI—What authorities say, 128
CHAPTER XII—Conclusion, 151
APPENDIX A—Total production and consumption of Beer
in various countries and cities, 166
“ B—Analyses of Beers, 170
“ C—Illustrations and descriptions of Breweries, 177
“ D—List of Brewers, with product for the past
two years, also product by states, 185
ILLUSTRATIONS.
1. JACOB VAN ARTEVELDE, “Brewer of Ghent,” Patrician, Orator and
Ruler of the Province of Flanders. Killed July 17, 1345. Taken from
the original oil painting in possession of Jan Van Artevelde, in
Amsterdam.
2. MYNHER JACOBUS, Brewer and First Burgomaster of New Amsterdam
[the present New York], 1644.
3. WILLIAM PENN, the Quaker Brewer, and Founder of Pennsylvania,
1644-1718.
4. ISRAEL PUTNAM, the great American General, Brewer and Tavern
Keeper, at Brooklyn Conn., 1718-1790.
5. Sign of General Putnam’s Tavern in Brooklyn, Conn. (Original of
which is now in the Rooms of the Historical Society, at Hartford,
Conn.)
6. Portraits of the officers of the United States Brewers’
Association.
7. Portrait of Hon. Frederick Lauer of Reading, Pa.
8. Portrait of Hon. M. T. Bass, M. P., of Burton on Trent.
9. View of a Brewery of the old Egyptians, as described by Manathos
(3d century B. C.), High Priest in Heliopolis. (Said Brewery must
have stood at El Kahirch, the present Cairo.)
10. View of a Brewery connected with a convent in Bohemia, as
described by Thaddeus Hagecius, ab Hayek, 1585, in his book written
in Latin, under the title “De Cerevisia.”
11. William Penn’s House and Brewery in Pennsbury, Bucks County, Pa.
12. Brewery of the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, Milwaukee, Wis.
13. Brewery of the Hon. Frederick Lauer, Reading, Pa.
14. Brewery of the Hon. Gottfried Krueger, Newark, N. J.
PREFACE.
Our object in presenting the following pages to the public, is to call
attention to the value of pure beer as a preventive of intemperance.
Few persons are aware of the amount of patient investigation this
question has received at the hands of eminent social economists and
men of science, or of the mass of facts and testimony that has been
collected, and lies ready at the hand of any one who is able and
willing to work it over into a compact consecutive form, in which
it shall be easy of access, and available for use in the further
discussion of the subject. This we have attempted to do thoroughly
and fairly. Great caution has been used in making statements and no
inference has been drawn that could be considered in any way forced or
doubtful.
There are doubtless many persons to whom some of the facts and
conclusions here presented, may seem strange or even startling, and
to such it must be said that the authorities quoted are generally men
whose reputation for accuracy and sound judgment stands so high that
they cannot afford to make a mistake or a loose assertion.
The work has involved much labor and historical research, and the
author believes that the information contained in the following pages
cannot fail to be of value to those who are interested in any phase
of the beer question, whether as brewers, legislators or students
of sociology. The end proposed to be served is that of temperance,
and the method suggested is one that has been successfully tried in
other countries. From the total abstinence party we ask the candid
examination of our facts and arguments that is due to a fair statement
from all who claim respect for their own opinions, and are honest
friends of real temperance.
BEER,
ITS HISTORY AND ITS ECONOMIC VALUE
AS A
NATIONAL BEVERAGE.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE SUBJECT.
As extremes do and must perforce exist, the noblest philosophy of life
is _compromise_.
Temperance then is the truest medium between total abstinence and
excess, and in the same manner, beer occupies the medium position
between ardent spirits and water. This fact is of the greatest
importance, and until the public thoroughly understands the
differences, whether from a moral, social, economic, or sanitary point
of view, between distilled and fermented liquors, or in other words,
beer and whisky there can be no hope of proper legislation as to the
traffic in these articles. This legislation is now greatly influenced
by the public advocates of total abstinence, among whom, if their own
repeated claims be taken into account we might expect to find only
disinterested, high-minded philanthropists. But it is notorious that
their ranks are largely swelled by ignorant, ambitious or foolish men,
whose vanity or pecuniary interest determines their action, and whose
persistence and numerical strength will constitute an effective power
until legislative bodies and the people at large are more thoroughly
informed as to the actual experience of countries in which the problem
has been dispassionately studied and brought to a successful solution.
In too many of our states the liquor laws represent the triumph of
ignorance and prejudice over reason and the welfare of the community.
We hold that the solution of the temperance question is to be found
through fermented liquors, and “BEER AGAINST WHISKY” is our motto.
Before coming, as we shall do later in this book, to a detailed
examination of the facts in regard to the use of beer, it may be well
to declare briefly our position, and give some indication of the kind
of testimony that will be more fully displayed under a separate heading.
We hold that the production and sale of beer is so far from being
subversive of public morals, that experience in all countries where
beer is the national beverage, demonstrates precisely the opposite
of this position. We hold too, that the use of beer is not merely
indifferent, but, within the limits of temperance (_i. e._ moderation),
a good and rational means of developing the mental and bodily powers of
man.
We cannot join in the gratulations of those who now—as they say—so
enthusiastically enjoy the blessings of total abstinence. During the
last thirty years we have seen something of the operation of this
enthusiasm, not only in Great Britain, but in the native state of the
originator of the movement in this country, and we find it impossible
to assent to the famous proposition that a pledged abstainer is a
drunkard saved. We have been convinced that a pledged abstainer is too
often a man who drinks in secret and thus adds hypocrisy to his other
sins.
Notice this passage from evidence given before a state committee
appointed to inquire into the action of the restrictive laws. The Hon.
James H. Duncan of Haverhill, says:
“My observation and convictions are, that temperance has not been
promoted by the prohibitory law; that the temperance of our people is
not so good now as before the passage of the law; it has no efficacy in
checking intemperance and the evils that result from it; it has been
productive of more mischief than good, and I think it an unwise act.
It is impossible to make that a crime which is not made a crime by the
divine law, and the use of beer, wine and cider cannot by any effort be
made a crime _per se_, yet the prohibitory statute makes it a crime to
sell either, and worse, it is a crime for a carrier to carry them. No
wonder that such a law demoralizes the community, for a vast amount of
lying and fraud have been called into existence through its agency.”
The Rev. George Putnam, D.D., said; “I believe and know that the
prohibitory law produces demoralization, and disrespect for a law that
cannot be enforced. It demoralizes jurors and witnesses. It demoralizes
the buyers and sellers of liquors, inducing them to resort to all
manner of frauds, tricks and evasions to do that unlawfully which they
cannot do lawfully. It is injurious to the conscience of the people to
be always violating this law; and so far as liquor selling is concerned
the law has done no good.”
These extracts and many others to be given later, go to prove that it
is most unwise to interfere with the social habits of a people, that
it is dangerous for a state to do so, and that, as a matter of fact,
temperance is not promoted by a prohibitory law. Public testimony
that such laws are a blunder, or worse, has been given by such men
as John Quincy Adams, Professor Agassiz of Cambridge, Rev. Leonard
Bacon, D. D., of Connecticut, Professor Bigelow of Boston, Professor
Edward Clark of Boston, ex-Governor Clifford, the late Right Rev.
M. Eastburn, D. D., the late Governor Andrews, and Oliver Wendell
Holmes, all of Boston, ex-Governor Washburn of Massachusetts, Professor
Bowen of Cambridge, General Burrell of Roxbury, Hon. Joel Parker of
Cambridge, Judge Patch of Lowell, Hon. James H. Duncan of Haverhill,
Mass., Rev. George Putnam, D. D., of Mass., Dr. Garcelon, Governor
of Maine, Dr. Willard Parker of the Inebriate Asylum at Binghamton,
N. Y., A. Schwartz, Esq., the distinguished editor and publisher of
the _Americanischer Bierbrauer_, and many others, comprising eminent
statesmen, judges, and divines of all the states of the Union.
Our legislators should consider it their solemn duty to protect
and foster the manufacture and sale of pure beer, and should frame
such laws as will protect the people against imposition and secure
the manufacture of an article that shall not only be made from good
materials, but be thoroughly well brewed and wholesome, and sold at a
moderate price.
Such a course will prove a blessing to mankind, and we do not hesitate
to say, that notwithstanding what fools or fanatics may say, preach or
write, Americans, and particularly those of the Eastern States, who
are probably the most practical people on the face of the globe, will
before long adopt beer as their national beverage. In doing so they
will but follow the example of the most civilized countries of Europe;
and it will soon be recognized that every brewery and every beer saloon
helps to loosen the grasp which alcohol has on any country where
distilled liquors are habitually used. Thomas Jefferson, writing Dec.
13, 1818, to M. de Neuville in reference to intemperance and the use of
light wines as a substitute for spirits, says, “No nation is drunken
where wine is cheap.” Beer is yet less alcoholic than wine of any sort
and has advantages of its own which will be discussed in due place.
Experience shows that sound, wholesome beer at a moderate cost is the
best catholicon yet discovered for intemperance. It weans a people
gradually but surely from strong drink and brings happiness, content
and morality in the place of dissipation and suffering. But it must
be good, cheap and accessible, and the responsibility of making it so
rests with our lawgivers. The poorer classes are those who need it most
and cause most injury and loss to the state when for lack of it they
consume ardent spirits—and these cheap and adulterated.
In spite of all difficulties considerable progress has been made, as is
shown by a consumption last year of more than nine million (9,473,361)
barrels of beer, which is the best evidence of a step in the right
direction towards national temperance.
CHAPTER II.
EARLY HISTORY OF BEER.
It is impossible to say where and when the brewing of beer began, for
the earliest historical records show its general use.
It is mentioned by Manathos, High Priest of Heliopolis, an Egyptian of
Greek education, who lived about 300 B. C. and by command of Ptolemaus
Philadelphus translated the old Egyptian history into Greek. He says
that the Egyptians, thousands of years before, had beer, and that its
invention was attributed to Osiris, a divinity representing all the
beneficent principles, also that celebrated breweries existed at that
time at El Kahirch, the Cairo of Europeans, and at Pelusinum on the
river Nile.
The Greeks had their _zythos_ (beer) as also their wine of barley, _ek
krithon methu_, and the _oinos krithinos_ as mentioned by Sophocles,
Æschylus, 470 B. C., Diodorus of Sicily and Pliny. Xenephon in his
account of the Retreat of the Ten Thousand, written 400 B. C., mentions
that the inhabitants of Armenia used fermented drinks made from barley.
[Illustration: VIEW OF AN OLD EGYPTIAN BREWERY,
_As described by Manathos (third century B. C.), High Priest in
Heliopolis_]
The Romans had their _cerevisia_ (beer) but with them it was a special
luxury. Julius Cæsar was a noted admirer of it, and Plutarch, 50 A. D.,
and Suetonius, each of whom wrote of Cæsar, tell us that after he had
crossed the Rubicon, 49 B. C., he gave a great feast to his leaders at
which the principal beverage used was _cerevisia_, and the biographers
of Lucullus tell us that at his magnificent entertainments beer was
served to his guests in golden goblets of the most costly device.
And at that time also the Romans were already accustomed to sing
_Cerevisiam bibunt homines, cœtera animalia fontes_.
In Germany beer was known about the same time, and Tacitus (54 A.
D.,) says, that the Roman general Varius, who was sent by Augustus to
conquer the country and subdue the inhabitants, but was defeated by
Arminius the leader of the Teutons, attributed the desperate valor of
the enemy and their complete success, in great measure to their free
use of _bior_ (beer).
The Allemanni, a large German tribe who were first mentioned by Dion
Cassius, 213 A.D., and who occupied the country between the river Main
and the Danube, were formidable enemies both to the Romans and the
Gauls. They attached great importance to their beer which was brewed
under the supervision of the priests, and before use was blessed with
many solemn rites. In an old code of theirs we find that every member
of a church (_Gotteshaus_) had to contribute for its maintenance
fifteen _seidel_ of beer or some equivalent. The Emperor Julian who
defeated them in the year 357 A. D., near Strasburg, where all their
forces were assembled under seven chiefs, found on the field of battle
numerous utensils designed to be employed in brewing.
The old Saxons in the seventh and eighth centuries when sitting in
council to consider questions of high importance would only deliberate
after drinking beer, which they took in common out of large _Humpen_
(stone mugs).
Charlemagne (742-814 A. D.,) himself gave directions how to brew the
beer for his court, and was as careful in selecting his brew-masters
as in choosing his councilors and leaders. A single circumstance,
attendant on his defeat of the Saxons at Paderborn, 777 A. D.,
illustrates the high respect in which brewing was then held, and in
this particular, is suggestive of its semi-sacred character among the
Allemanni as mentioned above. On that occasion it is related that the
Emperor, surrounded by his chief leaders and councilors and by the
ambassadors of distant nations, received the homage of the heathen
Saxon warriors, caused many thousands of them to be baptized and then
celebrated the double triumph of his arms and the Christian faith at
a great feast, at which there were seated with him Eginhard, Paul
Warnefried and Alcuin, the Emperor’s friends and advisers, and all
drank of beer brewed by Charlemagne himself, while they discussed the
great events that had just occurred. The drinking vessels were large
mugs of a peculiar form which are still to be seen among a collection
of relics presented to the Emperor by eastern potentates and now kept
in a tower at the west end of the Cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle, and
exposed to public view once in every seven years. Within a few years
numerous relics have been found in the vicinity of Paderborn which
indicate that beer brewing must have been as common and necessary in
both parties as the cooking of food.
The old Danes as far back as 860 A. D. under Gorm the Old, 936 A.
D. under Harold Bluetooth, and 985 A. D. under Swend Twybeard, were
acquainted with the art of brewing, and their old codes mention it as a
most honorable occupation.
In Bohemia, breweries were built at Budweis in the year 1256 A. D. by
direction of Ottokar II., King of Bohemia, and few cities in the world
can point to an establishment of such antiquity. Budweis beer is now
almost universally known and approved, though it is needless to say
that it differs materially from that made six hundred years ago.
In the thirteenth century we see by an old law of France, in the reign
of Louis IX., of the year 1268, how highly beer was esteemed and that
laws were already made to secure the purity of beer as well as to
protect the brewers in their avocation, and for curiosity’s sake we
give our readers an extract of those laws as mentioned above:
1. No one shall brew beer or remove it in drays or otherwise, on
Sundays or on the solemn feasts of the Holy Virgin.
2. No one shall set up in the brewery who has not served a five years’
apprenticeship, and been three years a partner with a regular brewer.
3. Nothing shall enter into the composition of beer, but good malt
and hops, well gathered, picked, and cured, without any mixture of
buckwheat, darnel, etc., and the hops shall be inspected by juries,
to see that they are not used after being heated, moldy, damp, or
otherwise damaged.
4. No beer yeast shall be hawked about the streets, but shall be all
sold in the brew-houses to bakers and pastrycooks, and to no others.
5. Beer yeast brought by foreigners shall be inspected by a jury before
it is exposed to sale.
C. No brewer shall keep in, or about, his brew-house any cows, oxen,
hogs, geese, ducks, or poultry, as being inconsistent with cleanliness.
7. There shall not be made in any brew-house more than one brewing of
fifteen septiers at the most, of ground malt in a day.
8. Casks, barrels, and other vessels made to hold beer, shall be marked
with the brewer’s mark, in the presence of a jury.
9. No brewer shall take away from a house he serves with beer any
vessels which do not belong to him.
10. Those who sell beer by retail shall be subject to the inspection of
juries.
11. No one shall be a partner but with a master brewer.
12. No master brewer shall have more than one apprentice at a time,
which apprentice shall not be turned over without the consent of a jury.
13. No one shall take a partner who has quitted his master without the
consent of such master.
14. A widow may employ servants in brewing, but may not take an
apprentice.
15. Master brewers shall not entice away one another’s apprentices nor
servants.
16. There shall be three masters elected for jurymen, two of which
shall be changed every two years.
17. Such jurymen shall have the power to inspect in the city and
suburbs.
In addition every brewer had to pay duty, so that the king might
not be defrauded, was obliged to give notice of every brewing to a
commissioner, stating the day and hour he intended to kindle the fire
of his boiler, under a penalty of fine and confiscation. As brewing
necessitates the employment of a large quantity of grain, it was
customary, in times of scarcity, for the king to put a stop to the
manufacture of beer for a certain number of weeks. These rules and
regulations, made more than six hundred years since, are interesting
and curious to the brewers of to-day.
[Illustration: JACOB VAN ARTEVELDE,
“Brewer of Ghent,” Patrician, Orator and Ruler of the Province of
Flanders. Killed July 17, 1345. Taken from the original oil painting
in possession of Jan Van Artevelde, in Amsterdam.]
In the fourteenth century the monks were the ordinary brewers, and one
brewery founded by them at Dobraw near Pilsen, Bohemia, and endowed by
Charles IV. shortly before his death with a prescriptive right to brew
beer, is still in existence and is probably the oldest in the world.
Its five hundredth anniversary was lately celebrated with great pomp,
by all classes of society in that ancient city. Bohemian beer is to be
ranked with the very best known, and an idea of the annual product for
home and foreign consumption may be formed from the fact that there are
now no less than eight hundred and eighty-seven breweries in actual
operation.
In Austria, the first brewery built at Vienna was on the Weidenstrasse
and dates back as far as 1384. The oldest standing brewery in the same
place is the St. Marx Brew-house, founded in 1706.
In the Provinces of Flanders and Brabant a beer brewed of malt and
hops was the national beverage as early as the fourteenth century, and
brewers occupied an important position and were held in high esteem.
History tells us that one of them, _Jacob Van Artevelde_ the Brewer
of Ghent, a nobleman by birth, became a celebrated popular leader who
drove Louis I., Count of Flanders, into France, held the government of
the province and supported Edward III. of England until his death, July
17, 1345.
His son Philip, who at one time was chosen ruler of the provinces and
who died 1382, was as well known as a celebrated brewer as his father.
To Flanders also belongs the celebrated Gambrinus, who under his real
name of Jan Primus, Duke of Flanders, ruled Flanders and Brabant
wisely, and became the protector of the beer brewing fraternity. Under
the popular cognomen, however, (to which many mythical attributes have
been attached) he is universally known, and perhaps held in higher
esteem by a greater number of adherents than all the saints, even
including Saint Patrick, who have been canonized up to the present day.
In England beer was introduced by the Romans. The Saxons found it there
and improved wonderfully upon the discovery. For centuries it received,
in the modern literature of England, the constant attention and
consideration of churchmen, historians, poets and political economists.
The churchmen especially were active in the improvement of malt
liquors. William of Malmsbury says that the best brewers in England at
the time of Henry II. were to be found in the monasteries, and every
reader of early English literature remembers frequent allusions not
only to beer in general but to that of the holy fathers in particular.
The monks were the first to discover the peculiar fitness of the waters
of Burton on Trent for brewing purposes, and may thus be said to have
paved the way for the development of the enormous establishments that
now scatter their product over all the world.
According to “Tennant’s Guide to London,” published at the beginning
of the present century, there were in the reigns of the Tudors great
breweries at London, situated on the river-side below St. Katherine’s.
In 1492 King Henry VII. licensed a Flemish brewer, John Merchant,
to export a large quantity of the so-called “berre,” and that the
beer had to be of good quality and was under the surveillance of the
authorities, is proved by the fact that Geffrey Gate, an officer of the
king, twice destroyed the brew-houses on account of the weakness of the
beer.
In the reign of Elizabeth the demand for ale increased very largely,
and we find mention of an export of five hundred tuns of the precious
liquor at one time. This was sent to Amsterdam for the use of the
thirsty army in the Netherlands. Mary Queen of Scots in the midst
of her troubles seems not to have been altogether insensible to the
attractions of English beer, for when she was confined in Tutbury
Castle, Walsingham, her secretary asked “At what place near Tutbury
beer may be provided for her majestie’s use?” To which Sir Ralph
Sadler, governor of the castle made reply, “Beer may be had at Burton,
three miles off.” This Burton on Trent began to be famous for its
water in the thirteenth century. There is a document still extant,
dated 1295, in which it is stated that Matilda, daughter of Nicholas
Shoben had released to the abbot and convent of Burton on Trent certain
tenements, for which release they granted her daily for life two white
loaves from the monastery, two gallons of conventual beer and one
penny, besides seven gallons of beer for the men.
In the fifteenth century the monks in Germany brewed two kinds of beer
in the convents, one kind for the _Patres_, and an inferior beer for
the convents.
In the sixteenth century the breweries in Germany were already
celebrated for their malt beer.
Cities not having good cellars, on account of which good beer could
not be produced, were provided with the beverage through their city
fathers from other places, stored and sold in the cellars of the city
hall, hence the origin of the name Rathskeller. The most celebrated
beer at that time, was the Braunschweiger Mumme, and the beer of
Eimbeck, Merseburg and Bamberg. Beer before it could be sold had
to pass a strict examination by a committee consisting of brewers
of the greatest reputation, appointed by the burgomaster under and
by advice of the city fathers; and a “Brauherr,” (proprietor and
brew-master of a brewery) was a man of importance. In the principality
of Brandenburg—afterwards the kingdom of Prussia—it was thought as
early as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that beer was the
most wholesome of all beverages, and the electors of Brandenburg, later
the kings of Prussia, fostered breweries by the concession of numerous
privileges which were increased from time to time. Grants of this
character and of no small advantage were held by brewers in Cottbus,[1]
Province of Brandenburg, and were considerably enlarged by Frederick
the Great in favor of Huguenots who had at his invitation settled in
the kingdom after being forced by the revocation of the edict of Nantes
to leave France. These privileges, enjoyed by the Toussaints, Salems
and others for many years, were abolished by the declaration of the
freedom of trade in 1838.
[1] Celebrated for the famous white beer which was at that time largely
exported to Upper Silesia, Bohemia, Berlin, Hamburg, etc.
[Illustration: MYNHER JACOBUS,
Brewer and First Burgomaster of New Amsterdam (the present New York),
1644.]
After the year 1721 coffee began to be extensively used, and at last
Frederick the Great in order to check its introduction erected large
coffee roasting establishments which had a monopoly of the business,
and where the coffee was sold at an enormous price, only the nobility,
having the right of roasting their coffee beans. “Coffee smellers” or
spies were appointed to look out for evaders of the law, just as we
have now beer and whisky smellers. On the 13th day of September, 1777,
the great king issued his celebrated “coffee and beer manifesto.” It
was particularly addressed to the provincial members (_Landstande_)
of the provinces of Pommerania and Brandenburg, which were called
the nurseries of his armies, and read as follows: “It is disgusting
to notice the increase in the quantity of coffee used by my subjects
and the amount of money that goes out of the country in consequence.
Everybody is using coffee. If possible this must be prevented. My
people must drink beer. His majesty was brought up on beer and so
were his ancestors and his officers and soldiers. Many battles have
been fought and won by soldiers nourished on beer, and the king does
not believe that coffee-drinking soldiers can be depended on to
endure hardship or to beat his enemies in case of the occurrence of
another war.” This proclamation had the desired effect, and coffee was
thenceforth used merely as a luxury, while beer became the usual drink
of the people.
In the United States the pioneers in the brewing business were William
Penn and Jacobus, a Dutch brewer of whom Irving tells us that he
left the States General of Holland to settle on Manhattan Island in
company with Hendricks, the Kips and others. It will be remembered
that Manhattan Island was discovered by Hendrik Hudson in 1609 when he
passed inside Sandy Hook in search of a northwest passage, and that it
was granted by charter of the States General to the West India Company
to colonize the island. The company was not slow to discover the
advantages of such a concession and immediately set at work to build
forts, a church, a mill and a bakery while Jacobus, who thoroughly
understood the good effects of beer and the benefits that would follow
its introduction in the colony, established a brewery (in 1644) and a
beer garden on what is now the corner of Pearl street and Old Slip. He
afterwards became the first burgomaster and is said to have dispensed
beer and justice with equal gravity and impartiality, and to the
complete satisfaction of the inhabitants of new Amsterdam.
It may be interesting to some readers to know that while Jacobus
settled near the lower end of the present city the Kips were
established in the neighborhood of Bellevue Heights, and that on a part
of that settlement—in East 38th street—stands now the well known and
justly esteemed lager beer brewery of A. Huepfel’s Sons.
Somewhat later the same business was undertaken by Israel and Timothy
Horsfield, who came from England, one in 1706 and the other in 1720,
and settled in Brooklyn, L. I. Their brewery was near the ferry in what
is now Wallabout.
William Penn, 1644-1718, a man of Dutch extraction on his mother’s
side, founder of Pennsylvania and the leading spirit of its
settlement—so justly celebrated for his virtues—brewed and sold beer at
Pennsbury, Bucks County, Pa.
Good Quaker as Penn was, he was no ascetic. He was a great lover
of beer, and accustomed to praise his own brewing—he was not
averse to society, in his house was no lack of comfort, his table
was well provided, and his taste for good living could never be
impeached—dancing did not shock him, for both he and his family
patronized country dances and country fairs, and William Penn’s beer
was the beverage used on such occasions.
Under his proprietary laws he allowed beer to be sold free of license,
and this sensible enactment was continued under the state laws until
the year 1847, when a ten dollar license was substituted. Such a
tax certainly compares favorably with that of many other states and
displays a moderation and reasonableness that does credit to the Quaker
community and is in strong contrast to the spirit recently exhibited in
some parts of the country.
Another celebrated promoter of early beer brewing in America was Gen.
Israel Putnam, known to every child as the hero of the wolf’s den and
the desperate ride down the rocks, and to an older generation as a
brave soldier and marked character, the man who “dared to lead where
any dared to follow,” and who has gained a higher position in history
by virtue of his personal qualities and a touch of romance that clings
to his name than might strictly attach to his military services.
Although generally known as a Connecticut man he was born at Salem,
Mass., 1718, and in 1739, at the age of twenty-one, removed to Pomfret,
Conn., and later to Brooklyn in the same state, with which latter place
his name is afterwards associated. Here as a farmer and tavern keeper
he passed the remainder of his life except that considerable part which
was given to the active military service of his country. The change
from the life of a successful soldier to these commonplace pursuits
would seem to many to be near akin to a fall, but Putnam’s practical
good sense found no difficulty in it. When he returned from the army
he resumed his farming, tavern business and beer brewing, and seems
to have had no false shame at either of the humbler avocations. Like
a wise and self-contained man he did the work nearest to his hand and
found honor in it whatever it might be. On the other hand, however, it
is no small credit to the beer brewing fraternity to have had such a
man in their ranks, even were it in a more limited and incidental way
than was actually the case. The tavern sign of General Israel Putnam,
which hung before his door in Brooklyn, (Conn.,) in the year 1768 and
later, is now preserved in the rooms of the Historical Society at
Hartford, (Conn.,) and an illustration representing it will be found on
the opposite page.
The sign is made of yellow pine, painted alike on both sides. The
device is a full length portrait of General Wolfe, dressed in scarlet
uniform. The portrait of the young hero is quite correct.
The sign was presented to the Historical Society by Rufus S. Mathewson
of Woodstock.
Aside from the early public breweries there were doubtless many in
which beer was made for family consumption. “Home brewed” was common in
the native homes of most of the colonists, and there is no reason to
suppose that they voluntarily changed their accustomed manner of living
and dispensed with a wholesome drink to which they had been used from
infancy.
In leaving this branch of the subject it should be noted that the beer
of the earliest periods, like the ale of England before the seventeenth
century, was usually made without hops, and it is impossible to say
when these were first employed, although the experiment was certainly
of no very modern date. It was probably the greatest improvement ever
made in the production of beer, since it gives a light, clear, and
elegant product very different from anything that was produced on the
other plan. The modern demand was for a drink that should be agreeable,
refreshing and moderately stimulating, and it is now abundantly
recognized that the fermented decoction of malted barley, clarified and
preserved by the hops, best fulfills this requirement.
[Illustration: Gen^l WOLFE.
SIGN OF GENERAL PUTNAM’S TAVERN IN BROOKLYN, CONN.
_The original is now in the Rooms of the Historical Society, at
Hartford. Conn._]
Beer has been considered a necessity in all generations, and only in
this, the nineteenth century, have extremists arisen to condemn its
use. It is worthy of note that its greatest enemies are among a class
who, in the olden times, were its greatest friends. The old abbeys and
monasteries were the places where the best malt liquor was brewed; and
not least among the benefactors of their species were the Franciscans
and Dominicans, who brewed good beer to cheer the hearts of toiling
humanity. Bishops have written in its praise; universities have
encouraged its production; and kings having the comfort and contentment
of their subjects in view have cared for its proper provision. Under
date January 27, 1617, it is noted in “Langbaine’s Collections” that
one John Shurle had a patent from Abraham Lake, Bishop of Bath and
Wells and Vice Chancellor of Oxford, for the office of Ale-taster to
the university. “The office of Ale-tasting requires that he go to every
ale-brewer that day they brew, according to their courses, and taste
their ale; for which his ancient fee is one gallon of strong ale and
two gallons of strong wort.”
Such a fact is enough to make the modern teetotal dominies stand
aghast, but it may well be doubted if they are better or wiser men than
their predecessors, one of whose distinguishing characteristics was
usually a sound common sense in the ordinary affairs of life.
CHAPTER III.
EARLY HISTORY OF BEER—CONTINUED.
With the close of the preceding chapter we had intended to leave this
branch of the subject, but a paper of Hans von der Planitz, written
in German on the same topic, is so interesting that we cannot do
better than quote a considerable portion. It is written with genuine
enthusiasm and is valuable not merely for its facts regarding the early
history of beer, but also as a picture of customs and manners, often
given in the words of writers contemporary with the circumstances
described. The picturesque or realistic effect of the old German
has been as far as possible preserved in the rendering of passages
written in that style, and very often the original is added in a note
or otherwise, for the enjoyment of readers who are able to appreciate
its flavor. Quotation at such length has involved a trifling amount of
repetition of matter already stated, but it has seemed better to submit
to this than to mutilate an independent account, much of whose effect
depends on its manner of developing the subject. Commencing with the
ninth century the writer says:
“Beer brewing in England and Flanders is mentioned by Walafried
Strabo. (849 A. D.) It had been known from a remote antiquity and
continued in use partly, at least, through Celtic influence. In France
beer gradually gave place to wine, while in Germany it made good its
position, and lager beer was discovered as early as the thirteenth
century, that of the Mark being especially celebrated. In Bohemia the
earliest account of beer brewing dates as far back as 1086 A. D. Poland
and Prussia were addicted to the barley juice before the time of modern
civilization and honored a special god of beer, _Raugunzemapat_, whose
name is derived from _rugti_, to ferment, and literally signifies
the god of fermentation. In Bavaria, where, under Roman influence,
wine growing had attained an important place which it was destined
afterwards to lose, beer was commonly known within the first thousand
years of the present era and is mentioned by Voehrung, 816, and
others. According to Graesse it was a dull brown and reddish drink and
soured easily. In the more primitive districts oats were used as the
basis, and only “upper-ferment” beer was made. In the latter part of
the middle ages the process by “under fermentation” was discovered,
its origin, according to Professor Holzner of Weihenstephan, being
in one of the monasteries. From this point beer brewing increased
vigorously until Bohemian competition and Bohemian hops gave it a
staggering check. In the southern countries of Europe beer does not
easily give place to wine though hard pushed, while in Asia and Africa
the inhabitants use their traditionary drink from one generation to
another, and in Egypt especially, the Arabs acquired a taste for the
beer of the Copts. Such was the condition of things when the dawn of a
new age showed itself on the horizon.
“The characteristic of a period is found essentially in its variation
from the adjacent epochs, and that of the one under consideration has
been already indicated. But beside the scientific researches, that
had very little connection with trade, there grew up a descriptive
literature that stands in close relation to the first general empire
of beer. To suppose that the present age is the first time of real
triumph for the liquor of Gambrinus, shows a very superficial knowledge
of the history of civilization, for apart from the Egyptian and
Celtic-Germanic beer epochs, which were somewhat local, we have already
long passed the real first period of success which fell in the time of
the _Renaissance_. In those days the brown flood spread out not merely
over Germany, England and Belgium, but into the far corners of recently
discovered countries; in village taverns and _rathskellers_ peasants
and citizens drank themselves full and merry. At the high schools the
students already went to the _kneipen_ with their rapiers (_spiessen_)
and swords, studied and rioted behind the tin can, and in the banquet
halls of princes and the cabinets of noble ladies, the barley juice
was a favorite beverage, not swallowed hastily from tumblers, but
taken with deliberation and full enjoyment from deep, wide-mouthed
mugs or tankards. Seven maas a day was the allowance for a lady of
high rank.[2] About the end of the seventeenth century the increasing
use of brandy and coffee put a stop to this immoderate consumption,
as at the same time the influence of France and the colonies with
their new dishes and resulting change of tastes, brought about the
progress from middle age cookery to that of modern times, and as the
Gustavus Adolphus boots and wide-brimmed plumed hats gave place to silk
stockings and perukes. The present age witnesses the second triumph of
Gambrinus, a triumph perhaps even greater than the first, for though
the capacity of individuals is far from equal to that of the men of
the Renaissance, except in the case of some academic beer soakers and
Munich _Danaidenfaesser_ (bottomless vessels), yet the distribution of
beer is more extensive, more general and more uniform. The consumption
in Europe alone has increased tenfold within fifty years and grows
constantly. In the first quarter of this century the wave spread from
Bavaria farther and farther over the whole map of Europe, and about
twenty years ago a new source was opened in Austria, and the Vienna
beer flowed through the canals which the Bavarian product had opened.
[2] Sieben Maas Bier per Tag vors graefliche Frauenzimmer war
Vorschrift.
This first epoch stands in close relation with the general abounding
strength of that period of civilization. Adventurous sailors and
explorers had broken the bonds of the known earth, plain men had dared
to enter the lists with that hierarchy, to attack which had been held
profanation; art had thrown aside the old traditions and brought out
the old master-works, the world of scholars had torn itself loose
from petrified scholasticism and turned to the ancient classics,
and, as in most branches of science, so also in chemistry, there was
a genuine revolution, and it was studied in reference to medicine
almost as assiduously as it had previously been in the search for the
philosopher’s stone. New inquiries were set on foot, old problems
revived and attacked from a new point of view, and among these the
subjects of yeast and fermentation played an important part. Not
many decades have passed since the practical brewer found neither
interest nor profit in theories of fermentation, and especially all
chemical and physical discussion of his work and processes. The
purely scientific style which too often had very little reference to
the practical man, and the various contradictory views and learned
controversies were not calculated to attract the interest of the beer
brewer. Scholars discussed and disputed, the man of trade brewed and
coopered, and neither paid any attention to the other. Now the case is
very different. Intelligent and thoughtful brewers have been forced to
admit that an insight into the nature of the materials they use, and
the changes these undergo while in their hands will not merely enlarge
their intellectual horizon, but be of great practical use in their
business, and in consequence are found keenly alive to the progress of
scientific inquiry.
Some reference has already been made to the empirical knowledge of the
earlier ages. Even Pliny’s often quoted “_Palam est naturam (farinæ)
acore fermentari_” is merely a summary of the result of observation.
Noah’s wine making, the leaven[3] of the Jews and such like may be left
to special history. The word _fermentum_ as used by the alchemists
has no very definite meaning; in general their explanation is to the
effect that by means of the ferment a purifying and refining process
is set in action—and hence many efforts were made to discover a
general ferment by whose instrumentality it would become possible
among other things, to transform the baser metals into gold. For this
reason they often use the word _fermentum_ to indicate the anxiously
sought “philosopher’s stone.”[4] The indefinite character of the word
is mentioned by Petrus Bonus of Ferrara (1345): “_Apud philosophos
fermentum dupliciter videtur dici: uno modo ipse lapis philosophorum
ex suis elementis compositus et completus, in comparatione ad metalla;
alio modo illud quod est perficiens lapidem et ipsum complens_,” and
Raymond Lull’s definition, “_Fili, fermentum est corpus perfectum,
subtiliatum et alteratum per potestatem convertentium_,” has the
predicate so indefinite as to give no real information. We add another
quotation from the same author merely to show further the jargon these
men of learning were accustomed to use. He writes “_Fili, præparatio
istius est, quod illud sit transactum primo per naturæ principalia
controvertentia, antequam de isto facias fermentationem, quia illud
fiat principio pulvis calcinatus per coagulationem et quarto sublimatus
per separationem._” George Ripley’s consideration of the subject
calls for no special notice, but the views of Basilius Valentinus
who wrote in the latter half of the fifteenth century will be found
more interesting. He held fermentation to be a purification by means
of which the spirit of wine that already existed in a fluid was put
in condition to act, unfermented beer being dead, “because existing
impurities prevent the spirit from doing its work. Yeast induces in
beer an internal quickening that advances of itself and results in a
division and segregation of the clear and muddy elements, and after
this separation _puri ab impuro_ the spirit can accomplish its duty
successfully, as appears from the subsequent power of the liquor to
produce intoxication.” Valentine is the last in the series of scholars
who though belonging chronologically to a previous epoch must from
the nature and relations of their inquiries be reckoned as belonging
to the new era. It is not in the history of progress as in that of
politics where two adjacent periods can be sharply defined and their
limits assigned to exact dates. Progress goes on gradually, modifying
or adding to what has already existed, and we do not clearly notice
the transformation until it is complete or at least far advanced. So
it was in this case. Far back in the middle ages men turned their
attention to the “ferment” and to fermentation. Much was written, much
nonsense and humbug published; almost no results were attained, but
the beginning was made. Men of the later time grasped the collected
material, regulated and systematized the inquiry and vied with each
other in its prosecution. Struggle and activity were then so universal
that there was a disposition to consider fermentation a special branch
of chemistry, and after treating of the fermentation of wine, beer,
vinegar, etc., it was suggested that the whole vital process might be
nothing more than a continual fermentation.
[3] _Galliæ et Hispaniæ frumento in potum resoluto spuma ita concreta
pro fermento utuntur; qua de causa levior illis quam ceteris panis est._
[4] _De fermento, sine quo ars alchemiæ perfeci et compleri non potest._
[Illustration: View of a Brewery connected with a convent in Bohemia
(14th century), as described by Thaddeus Hagecius ab Hayek, 1585, in
his book, written in Latin, under the title, _De cerevisia_.]
Notwithstanding all that has been said it seems best to date the new
epoch definitely from the beginning of the sixteenth century, and this
although we can reckon no names or events of importance in the year
1501, and must pass over a number of decades to reach Libarius the
first theorist of the second epoch. The reasons for such a division
are various, partly to remove as far as possible all uncertainty from
the discussion, partly because at that memorable time the general
break with blind tradition and the development of new intellectual
and social conditions took place in such a manner as to have a direct
influence on the history of beer and so connect the general revolution
with the province of zymotechnic inquiry. If we date from Libarius we
commit an anachronism, for he stands in the full light of the new era.
In short, beer and its history are so intimately related to social
life and its development that we cannot consider the former alone
and without regard to the latter. The oldest book in this sort of
literature at present known, was published in 1530, under the title,
“An Excellent Little Book of the Making of Wine and Beer so that they
may be Useful and Wholesome to Man. Printed at Erfurt by Melchior
Sachssen at Noah’s Ark.”[5] In 1551, a scholar (Plocotamus) wrote “_De
natura cerevisiarum et de mulso_,” and somewhat later (1585) Thaddeus
Hagecius ab Hayek wrote in Latin a work with the title “_De cerevisia
ejusque conficiendi ratione, natura, viribus et facultatibus_.” More
important than any of these is a book written in German by Heinrich
Knaust, its value consisting not so much in historical deductions as
in a review, grounded on the personal knowledge of the author, of the
facts regarding beer in his time. It is chiefly through this volume
that we are able to form a clear conception of the high development and
actual power of beer at the end of the sixteenth century. On the first
page of the book the master wrote in a style thoroughly characteristic
of the period with its swelling, stilted bombast and magniloquence,
the famous title, “Five Books of the Divine and Noble Gift of the
Philosophical, Precious and Admirable Art of Beer Brewing. Also of the
names of the most Admirable Beers in all Germany, and of their Natures,
Temperaments, Qualities, Individual Characters, Wholesomeness, and
Unwholesomeness, whether wheat or barley, white or red beer, spiced
or not spiced. Newly revised and much Fuller and More Perfect than
the former edition. By Master Heinrich Knaust, Doctor of Law and of
Medicine. Published at Erfurt by George Baumann, 1575, in the twelfth
month.”[6] As a matter of curiosity we reproduce his view of the origin
of beer. According to this the men before the deluge ate herbs and
vegetables and drank water, and he thinks it strange that they should
ever have plucked up heart to become saucy on such a diet. “After the
deluge they received the gift of wine, and where no vines grew God
taught them to make a drink of wheat and barley that was both healthful
and agreeable and as well fitted to strengthen and support the human
system as wine itself.”
[5] Ein schoenes Buechlein von bereytung der wein und bier zu
gesundheit und nutzbarkeit der menschen gedruckt zu Erffurd durch
Melchior Sachssen zu der Archen Noe.
[6] Fuenf Buecher von der goettlichen und edeln Gabe der
philosophischen hochteuren und wunderbaren Kunst Bier zu brauen. Auch
von Namen der vornempstere Biere in ganz Teutschland und von deren
Naturen, Temperamenten, Qualitaten, Art und Eigenschaft, Gesundheit
und Ungesundheit, sey ein Weitzen oder Gersten, Weisse oder Rotte
Biere, Gewuertzet oder Ungewuertzet. Aufs neue uebersehen und in viel
wege ueber vorige edition gemehrt und gebessert. Durch Herrn Heinrich
Knausten, beider Rechten Doctor. Getr. zu Erfurt durch Georgium Baumann
1575 in 12.
When a well known physician of Berlin, Dr. F. G. Zimmerman, felt
himself compelled to declare beer a poison, it was Abraham A. Santa
Clara of Vienna who, in his “History of the Discovery of Beer,”
entitled “Something for All,” 1710, spoke as follows: “Noah planted
the first vineyard and the culture of the vine afterwards spread all
over the world, but as some climates are too harsh for the grape and
prevent its ripening, human ingenuity was forced to discover another
drink which should not merely quench thirst, but like wine excite the
brain.[7] Among the Germans it is called beer, and its brewing requires
a special experience, so that the men of this craft are not counted
least among workmen.” So said also Ehinger, Fritsch, Germershausen,
Gleditsch, Heuman, Hofman, Sensky, Solms and Trafenreuter. In all
this scientific and learned emulation in the matter of fermentation
(zymologie) we learn plainly enough that even the representatives
of science did not confine their attention to a purely theoretical
consideration of the barley juice, but hid the contents of many a can
and mug behind their wide stiff collars, the clergy taking their full
share in this part of the discussion. Luther’s fondness for beer is
well known, and on the evening of that eventful day at Worms, April
18, 1521, the Duke Erich von Braunschweig, sent him a pot of Eimbecker
beer, to which he was specially addicted. The students, whether of
medicine or theology, used every effort to follow faithfully the
illustrious example, whence perhaps it comes that the youth of the
high schools and universities, wedded to tradition, still delight to
hang about the inviting, wide-yawning door of the cool beer cellar.
In the Renaissance, however, the last trace of the _Biercomment_ and
_Bierspielen_ was finally lost.
[7] Der Noë hat zwar den ersten Weinstock gepflantzt welches Gewuechs
nachmals durch die ganze Welt ausgebreitet worden; weil aber etlicher
Orten der rauhe Luft dem Weinstock zuwider und folgsam, solcher in
dergleichen Orten nicht fruchtsam tuht, also hat der Menschen Witz ein
anderes Trunk erfunden welches nicht allein den Durst loeschet sondern
gleich dem Wein, auch den Tuermel in den Kopf bringt.
[8] The common people would not sober stay,
Could find to cup or mouth the nearest way;
Enjoyed their life, and of the barley’s blood
Swilled day and night the brown and foamy flood.
[8] Des Volks gemeine Horte blieb nicht hinten,
Es wusste Kneip’ und maul sehr wohl zu finden;
Im Hochgenuss des Seins, aus Schlauch und Fass
Soff’s Tag und nacht das edle braune Nass.
Beer was retailed in beer-houses and vaults, and in warm weather before
the door, and places which had the hereditary right of brewing also
sold beer occasionally in the living room of the house, and announced
the fact by a mat-weed stuck horizontally above the door. In this
custom we see plainly enough the origin of the later shop signs. In
Oberpfalz (the Upper Palatinate), in the Schwarzwald (Black Forest),
and elsewhere, even now when a privileged brewer wishes to give notice
that he will sell on draught, he hangs up a broom or a triangle of fir
boughs. The publicans of a later time simply exchange this primitive
advertisement for the more durable ones of tin and iron. Before the
windows of the pot houses were folding tables at which the wagoners
usually preferred to drink, and the wandering bands, of whom there was
then an immense number, were accustomed to seat themselves at these
same tables and pass the time in riotous talk and games of dice until
the “beer bell” of the place broke up the assembly and drove them to
their homes and to the inn.[9] When a fair was held the women dealers
in refreshments (Kretschenweiber) took possession of the benches and
sold their beer there in cups of tin, stone or wood, while bread, meat,
sausages, cheese, etc., were brought from the neighboring stands of the
butchers and bakers, for even then people liked to do their business
where wine and beer were close at hand. On any occasion of public
festivity beer booths were a prime necessity, bagpipes and fiddles
were not wanting and a lusty, merry throng danced in the open space
between the crowded benches and tables. The Netherlandish painters have
left us hundreds of cabinet pictures of these festivities and of the
manner and fashion in which they were carried on, and their delightful
and characteristic variations of the theme enable us to form a vivid
conception of what it must have been. Especially worthy of notice in
this respect are Teniers, (whose “Yearly Market”[10] in the Munich
Pinakothek contains 1138 human figures, 45 horses, 67 asses, 37 dogs,
etc., curiously crowded in a jovial throng,) P. Brueghel, the Ostades,
Brower, Jan Steen, who from a fancy for this sort of life himself
became a tavern keeper, and Rubens, whose sketches in this sort are
strikingly good. During the “Thirty Years War,” that is, at the very
culminating point of the epoch, tobacco came into use and the now
inseparable pair, “beer and tobacco,” played an important rôle together
even then. Barley and “mixed corn” (rye and wheat, barley and oats,
oats and rye,) were chiefly used for brewing purposes, but there were
always those who preferred plant beer. It is interesting to know that
pitch was supposed to give the product of fermentation a better keeping
quality.
[9] See the Civil Law of Erfurt.
[10] The picture is eight feet high and twelve feet wide.
We must not omit to mention that this beer worship was not so well
developed in South Germany where it is now best marked, as in North
Germany. Saxony, the Mark and Pomerania were mentioned as “the great
drinking countries.” There was a swarm of names celebrated in beer,
and Knaust’s book shows that it was held no small credit to have drunk
various noted kinds of beer where they were made. There was a Lubeck
Israel, an old Klaus (Brandenburg), a Goslauer Gose, a Hanover Braehan,
a Soltzman at Saltzwedel, a Rastrun at Leipsic, beer of Corvey, beer of
Harlem, Dantzic brew, Eimbecker brew, and many others.[11] Of English
beer, Hersford (Kamma) and the Yorkshire ale were chiefly esteemed.
Most celebrated of all, however, was the Braunschweig _Mumme_, named
for its discoverer, Christian Mumme (1492). By the side of these
brewing celebrities the old beer cities of the middle ages had retained
their character into the time of the Renaissance, as for instance,
Hamburg, with its wheat beer,[12] and others; and many places made
every effort to reach a similar position, partly by the adoption of new
methods, and partly by the enlargement and increase of beer breweries.
In Nuremberg, for instance, the first white beer was brewed in 1541; in
Vienna the brewery with a hundred towers was built in 1564; breweries
were erected at Gumpendorf in 1689, and at St. Marx in 1706; and in
1633 there were established at Freiburg six malt-houses and twelve
breweries.
[11] To these should be added the celebrated beers of Cottbus, and the
Karthuser of Frankfort on the Oder.—_Author._
[12] Wheat beer played an important rôle in the thirty years war.
Wallenstein himself was very much addicted to its use.
The important beer privileges that had been so eagerly grasped by
the monasteries and cities in the middle ages, were by hereditary
right brought over into the new era. The landed estates of the nobles
received back in 1517 the privileges which had been so long kept
from them, and by this means all obstacles were removed from the
beer traffic which had reached so hopeful a development during the
middle ages, and it became possible for it to develop to an extent of
which our own time need not be ashamed. Now it is no great matter to
transport beer from Vienna to Paris by rail and in iced compartments,
but we can not but admire the successful enterprise that in those
days and with such means of transportation as existed, could export
Eimbecker beer to Lombardy as described by the Italian Arnoldus of
Villanova in 1594, and even to Alexandria and Cairo. Nuremberg was one
of the great centers of the beer trade. Rostock and Lubeck supplied all
England and sent not less than 800,000 barrels yearly to that country
until the business was checked by a marked increase in the quantity
brewed by the English themselves. A number of the large English
breweries were founded about this time.
In the households of the reigning princes, there was a strong tendency
to supplement the native brew by imported products, and at such
festivities as marriages, christenings, target-shooting and hunting,
immense quantities of drink were swallowed. The cellar ordinance of
Duke Ernst the Pious, in 1648, allowed for ladies of noble rank four
_maas_ of beer a day, and three _maas_ for a “nightcap.” How much ought
in such circumstances to be the allowance for a man of similar rank,
and of his hangers on is left to the imagination of the reader.
Noble families that had no brew-houses were obliged to supply
themselves from the brewery of the prince. A beer tax also was levied
on vassals who brewed their own beer. An excellent illustration of
the condition of things is afforded by the celebrated Hofbrauhaus at
Munich, in whose whitewashed rooms every stranger still takes at least
one _maas_. As early as the time of Louis the Severe, there existed a
little court brewery at Munich near the _Burggasse_, but towards the
end of the sixteenth century, the demand increasing and the facilities
for production having long been inadequate, William V. proceeded to
the building of the present brew-house, which was at first intended
only for the making of white beer, the brown being still made in the
old quarters. In 1708, however, brown beer also began to be made in
the new establishment. This topic is treated in a stereotyped article
which appears every year in the May number of the Munich Beer Gazette,
under the title “Bock article,” and gives the worshipful bock-drinking
community a solemn and moving account of the court brewery and its
products down to the minutest particulars. As regards bock itself,
which is no longer an exclusive specialty of Munich, as a drink under
the same name is sold every year in various cities, Graesse places
its origin in the seventeenth century, and suggests that it was an
imitation of the Eimbecker beer,—the last rather in virtue of a general
theory and of a supposed play on words, Eimbeck, Aimbock Bock—than
as an actual fact.[13] He says that “the Munich Aimbock or Bock was
made before 1616, the same that is now sold at the beginning of May on
Corpus Christi day.” Now, however, it has been shown that all through
the second half of the sixteenth century (1553-1574) Aimpecker and
Eimbecker beer was spoken of, and that there was an import of beer to
Vienna from Eimbeck as late as 1771, while no trace of any play of
words on the name is discovered. Moreover, that the “bock cellar”[14]
(on the place of the present Restaurant Bonner) was in full operation
at the beginning of the present century, is shown by Chr. Mueller
who wrote under Max Joseph, and described the manners of the place
very nearly as they were to be observed recently, just before the
disappearance of this historical locality, and it is doubtless the
fact that the larger half of the reputation of Munich beer is due to
this specialty. Graesse, speaking of the high reputation of Bavarian
beer, in which he includes as a matter of course that of Munich, is
of the opinion that the general preference for it does not reach
back farther than the early part of this century, and produces some
important evidence to support this view of the case. On the other hand
it is to be claimed in opposition that in such a discussion a careful
distinction is to be made between Bavarian beer and Munich beer, since
the renown of the first is relatively new and hardly goes to the first
twenty years of the century, and its export did not begin in Munich,
and also because that city has not yet been able to attain to the first
rank as an exporter of beer. The reputation of Munich beer is older,
for Mueller (1816) speaks of it as celebrated, and complains that
the excellence of the native product is far surpassed by that of the
Toelzer and Dachauer beers, and that the latter prevail in the Munich
beer shops. This statement corresponds with the unfortunate situation
of the beer interest that was inherited from the previous century,
and that forces us to go back to the seventeenth century for a time
of unquestioned supremacy for beer. In connection with this subject
should be mentioned the successful founding of the Munich Court Brewery
by William V. at the end of the sixteenth century, and these same old
rooms should be regarded as the center and starting point where the
fame of Munich beer was born and nourished, and where even through
all the epoch of perukes and cues, after the fall of the monasteries
that had contributed so much to the reputation of Munich beer, it was
preserved from decay.
[13] The Munich “Fremdenblatt” has lately expressed the same view.
[14] In a coach house of the old _residenz_ in Munich, Bavaria.
In the seventeenth century, in the time of Louis XIV., all Germany fell
under the sway of French influence. There were French conversation,
prayers and oaths, French amusements and French sins, French eating
and drinking. An effort to imitate all the French fashions that the
cavaliers brought from Paris was a characteristic of the sad season
that followed, a time sad for patriots, sad for beer brewers and for
beer. Beer was _une boisson de commun_. The beautifully ornamented
mugs and beakers were put away in the lumber-room (_rumpel kammer_)
and champagne glasses from Paris took their place. At evening, where
formerly the jovial barons and their chief followers had encamped round
the carved-oak table and laid a strong grasp on the mug—there was now
a service of cakes and tea, and where formerly milk and pepper or beer
was used as a morning draught, the coffee breakfast constantly acquired
more use and repute. The common people, however, stood fast for the old
way, and were never better pleased than when the privileged beer came
to honor. At this time, too, the change of rôles took place, and South
Germany entered on its new and important course at the beginning of the
present century. (The brewery at St. Marx was built in 1710, and in
1732 there were three brew-houses at Schwechat.)
It is as if the minds of men slumbered long, only to come at once into
a never suspected activity. In the midst of the tumult we find Balling,
Dreher, Sedlmayer, Kaiser, Otto and many others. Everything in brewing
is changed. Laboratories spring out of the ground and discoveries and
inventions come in countless numbers, brewing journals are started,
schools opened, fairs and associations multiply, and all in the space
of a single half century.
CHAPTER IV.
MODERN HISTORY OF BEER.
From the account already given, it will be seen that beer not only
took an early hold on the affections of the people, but kept its
position wherever it was introduced. It is now well established in
every civilized country and plays so important a part in the economy of
nations that a review of the light in which it is regarded by different
governments cannot fail to be both interesting and useful.
In Germany the state uses every possible means to provide good,
wholesome beer for the people. It is the habitual beverage of most
of the population, used by them at their meals and their places of
amusement, cheering but not intoxicating, and rendering them temperate,
industrious, healthy and contented, a people whose bravery is beyond
question, and whose peaceable yet progressive qualities tend to make
the nation powerful, and its government respected at home and abroad.
And yet an advance by the government of half a cent a quart on the
price of beer has in years not long passed caused a serious riot.
Cheap, wholesome beer is considered a necessity of life, and the
attempt to increase its cost an interference with the primary rights of
the community.
In Austro-Hungary, too, for many years government supervision has
secured the production of pure beer, which is sold at a very moderate
price. Some of the breweries are very large and the product is by
many held to be unsurpassed in quality. That of Vienna and Pilsen, in
particular, is universally known and esteemed. Beer is thoroughly the
national drink, and the beer gardens of Vienna are the resort of all
classes, from the Emperor down to his private soldiers.
The most important men of the empire have extensive breweries, and
among the great Austro-Hungarian brewers we find such names as Anton
Dreher of Schwechat near Vienna, Count Arco Valley of Zell, Upper
Austria, Count Arco Zinneburg of Kaltenhausen, Count Thurn Valsassina
of Sorgendorf, and in Bohemia Count Thun Hohenstein of Alt Benatek,
His Majesty the Emperor Franz Josef, Prince Carl Hohenzollern, Prince
Trautmansdorf, Prince Josef Mansfeld, Prince J. A. Schwartzenberg,
Prince Max Thurn Taxis, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Rudolf Count von
Schoteck and many others.
A correspondent says: “At Trieste the drinking of beer is universal;
from infancy to age light wine and beer are the common beverages.”
He states that on Saturday night a pretty large number of laboring
people are “jolly drunk,” but not savage drunk. The latter condition is
unknown except among English and American sailors visiting the port.
Among the better classes no instance is known of a merchant, lawyer,
physician, shop-keeper, or master-mechanic becoming an inebriate and
gradually losing position, prosperity and business, and sinking into
a drunkard’s grave. Sometimes an Englishman or American has ruined
himself by the use of spirits—not of wine or beer.
Holland has brewed good beer for centuries, and though this country
has been better known as a producer of gin, the national beverage is
certainly beer. Professors Tilamus and Swingar of Amsterdam, and the
Secretary of the “Netherlands Society for the Abolition of Spirituous
Drinks,” say that gin drinking is no longer respectable, and they
recommend beer as a daily beverage. The beer gardens of Amsterdam and
Rotterdam are very widely known. Good bands are provided and people of
all ranks congregate to sip beer, smoke, talk, or listen to the music.
On his first visit to these places the writer made careful inquiries
as to the consumption of gin and other spirits, and was agreeably
surprised to learn that their use was practically confined to the
lowest classes and that beer was the common beverage. To find a drunken
man it was necessary to go to the docks and wharves, among the Irish
and American sailors. Nine-tenths of the gin manufactured is exported
to the United States, and most of its use at home is for medical
purposes.
The little kingdom of Belgium ranks next Bavaria as a beer consuming
country. There are three kinds of beer—Mars, a light beer and generally
used by the laboring class, Lambic, strong and light, and the Faro,
a mixture of Mars and Lambic. Brussels and Antwerp have some of the
finest beer gardens in the world, which furnish music to their patrons
equal to the best, and the general habits of the people are temperate.
Drunkenness is hardly found even among the lower classes.
Spain even is becoming a beer-drinking country. The beer formerly
consumed there was imported from England, Germany and Austria, and
in 1869 all the breweries in the country did not produce 500,000
liters, equal to 132,062 gallons, while the returns of the year 1878
show a production of over 4,750,000 liters, or 1,254,594 gallons—an
astonishing increase in a wine producing country—and the beer brewed at
the Santa Barbara brewery at Madrid is taking the lead of the imported
article.
Sweden and Norway also recognize the necessity of providing a wholesome
stimulant for the people, and for more than a hundred and fifty years
their respective governments have given attention to the matter. Not
long ago patents for the manufacture of ardent spirits, which had
long been held among the nobility, were revoked, and an attempt made
to secure temperance through the more common use of malt liquors. Mr.
George Hayward, then proprietor of the celebrated Lion Brewery at
London, England,[15] was engaged by the government to superintend the
introduction of improved beer in Sweden, and the experiment proved a
thorough success. As beer increased drunkenness diminished, and both
government and people have recognized the benefits of malt liquors.
According to figures lately furnished by Dr. Ellis Sodenbladh of the
Swedish statistical bureau, beer brewing has attained the position of a
leading industry in that country. The annual product exceeds twenty-six
million gallons, and this result is largely due to an increased tax on
spirits and the remission of all taxation on beer, which may now be
fairly considered the national beverage.
[15] Mr. Hayward died a short time ago at Albany, N. Y.
Denmark formerly consumed great quantities of ardent spirits, the
amount used in proportion to the population being even greater than in
the prohibitory state of Maine. The introduction of the excellent beer
made by Jacobsen at Carlsberg brought about an entire change. Beer is
now the drink of the country and public feeling is strongly opposed to
the use of whisky. The people have become remarkable for quiet and good
order, and the police magistrates of the larger cities, as Copenhagen
and Elsinore report that for a long time no cases of murder, homicide
or theft brought before them have been traced to the influence of
strong drink. Arrests for street disorder are very rare and chiefly
confined among the foreign seamen. The consumption of beer is about
twenty gallons annually to the individual, and this amount seems to
produce only favorable effects, as the people are a strong, hardy race
with an average longevity far above that of the United States. The
advantages of all kinds that have followed the general introduction of
beer are very remarkable.
In Russia, a commission was some time ago appointed to investigate
the question of drunkenness in the empire. The use of strong ardent
spirits had been almost universal. Drunkards were not to be reckoned by
individuals or even families. Whole districts were plunged in habits
of brutal intoxication and this national pest demoralized the armies,
filled poor-houses and hospitals, the lunatic asylums and the prisons.
As a result of the labors of this commission, and in accordance with
the unanimous report of its members, the Czar has recently conferred
very valuable privileges on those who establish breweries in his
dominions. The object being to secure for the people good beer at a low
price, all taxes on beer and articles used in its manufacture have been
abolished, while the use of ardent spirits is still further checked by
the imposition of heavy duties on all introduced to the country, and
severe taxes on its manufacture or sale; and[16] whenever the crop of
barley turns out to be light, the government prohibits exporting the
same.
[16] Owing to a light crop the Russian government has prohibited the
export of barley for the current year, 1879.
In Greece, breweries are springing up about Athens and the Piræus, and
all over the Levant and the neighboring islands, and the _ek krithon
methu_ (barley wine) of olden times is going to be the ordinary
beverage of the people instead of the rather strong wines that the
country produces.
In France during the reign of Napoleon III., it was discovered that
the ardent spirits most in use were so adulterated as to produce
serious injury to consumers apart from that which always attends the
free use of these liquors. Spirits were used to a much greater extent
than could be justified on any sound principle. The Emperor, whose
practical judgment was excellent in matters not immediately affecting
his own ambition, offered inducements to English and German brewers to
establish themselves in the country and the consumption of beer was
increased with very advantageous results. The change has already gone
so far as to alarm the wine merchants, and according to the “British
Mercantile Gazette” the consumption in Paris alone now reaches one
hundred million _liter_ bottles _per annum_ or nearly half a pint a day
to every Parisian, which is not bad for a beginning. The beer used,
however, is still chiefly of foreign manufacture, the lager beer coming
chiefly from Vienna and Bavaria, and the ale from Alsopp and Bass. Some
American brewers of New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis received gold
medals at Paris for the excellence of their beer, and are now shipping
considerable quantities to that place.
Americans who have lately been in France must usually have been
surprised to notice how _bogk_ (lager beer) is already the common
beverage in the fashionable _cafés_ of the chief cities.
Some leading French savants trace a direct connection between the free
use of beer and the national greatness and indomitable personal courage
of their opponents in the late war, and hope by the development of
the brewing interest to add to the traditional virtues of Frenchmen
some of those displayed in the neighboring empire. The notion may be
rather fine spun, but the actual benefit of the development of a home
industry in beer will be none the less, and it cannot be doubted that
their end will be at least partially attained, though perhaps not in
so direct a fashion as they suppose. Monsieur Lunier has just brought
before the French Academy of Medicine, some very interesting statistics
on the use of fermented and other liquors. According to him, wine is
still the national drink. The consumption of cider is diminishing,
although still large, and brandy is much used to facilitate the
digestion of cider. The more cider, the more brandy. The quantity of
beer used, has considerably increased in most of the Departments,
and he proves conclusively that most cases of accidental death in
consequence of excess, occur in the departments where there is most
drinking of spirits, that apprehensions for drunkenness are five times
as numerous in these Departments as in those where wine is chiefly
used, that drunkenness in the beer-drinking regions is hardly known,
and that alcoholic insanity is almost everywhere in proportion to the
consumption of ardent spirits. The only exceptions are La Vendée and
Charente Inferieure where they drink only white wines, but use them in
immoderate quantities.
French brewers are now engaged in forming an association and the first
meeting has been announced to take place at Toulouse, in the late
autumn of the present year (1879). The _Industriel de Lyon_ speaks of
the matter as follows:
“In consequence of their number, and as representing forty-two
departments, the brewers who should support this association are most
influential. They would, by means of combination, be able to properly
protect their important industry, and struggle against errors of the
past, such as excise regulations, octroi, etc. Besides the meetings of
the Syndicate, whether held at Toulouse or Lyons, might take up general
economical questions of interest to its members, and also deal with
the fabrication of beer, malting, and the scientific phenomena, which
are more numerous and complex than is imagined. Brewing, it is further
asserted, is an industry of the future. Beer is a drink of progress
on account of its refreshing and especially nutritive qualities.
To produce beer cheap, appetizing to the eye, and agreeable to the
stomach, is the program which the brewers of the South have in view,
and which they must strive energetically to carry out if they wish
to compete at all successfully with the German beers. The phylloxera
is not an eternal enemy. Sooner or later science will neutralize its
effects.
“In the South of France, therefore, the opinion is held that the
greatest care should be given to the production of beer. Besides,
people in the South do not drink the good wine which they produce; they
export it. Money is more valuable to them than good wine. Inferior
wine, however, remains, and is consumed to a great extent. We are of
opinion that beer would offer to all considerable advantages; and
therefore it is desirable that the brewing industry in the South of
France should be developed in the fullest possible manner.”
In England about the year 1833 the use of intoxicating liquors had
increased to such a point that government applied itself to the
discovery of some means of diminishing the consumption. The Duke
of Wellington, whose long career as a soldier on the continent and
elsewhere had taught him the beneficial influence of beer, and who
saw clearly the amount of misery and degradation caused among his
countrymen by the use of distilled liquors, introduced while Prime
Minister, the well known “Beer Bill.” Its passage was urged distinctly
on the ground that a free consumption of beer would greatly diminish
the use of spirits. The Duke himself strongly advocated the bill and
instanced the continental beer-drinking countries as the happiest and
most temperate on the globe.
On the other hand the so-called temperance men appeared in large
deputations to urge (against all reason) that whatever beer might be
consumed would be in addition to the previous consumption of ardent
spirits and not in place of it, or any part of it, that intoxication
would be increased in a ratio correspondent to the amount of beer used,
and in short that the proposed plan of reform was much like an attempt
to quench fire by pouring on oil. The bill, however, was at last passed
by a large majority and has proved very successful. The consumption
of beer has largely increased, distilled liquors are less used, and,
notwithstanding the assertions of some over-zealous partisans of total
abstinence, we can prove by statistics carefully collected that the
amount of drunkenness in the country began to decrease immediately
after the passage of the bill. William E. Gladstone, the great English
statesman who, in the year 1868-9, carried through Parliament an act
intended to promote the cause of temperance by cheapening wine and
beer and making their sale part of the business of restaurants and
confectioners’ shops, wrote a short time ago as follows: “I am opposed
to coffee and tea palaces as I believe they are more deteriorating than
beer shops. The stimulating properties of coffee or tea are greater and
more injurious than those of malt liquors.”
The course advocated by the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Gladstone has
been fully justified by the results. Drunkenness has decreased and
breweries have multiplied. The measure of advantage is to be found in
the increase of large breweries whose product is distributed through
many channels, for these furnish what is to take the place of the
ardent spirit formerly consumed when one was away from home or wanted a
change from the home-brewed ale to which he was accustomed. They also
attract the favor of the poorer classes because they furnish so much
more in bulk and nutritive power at the same or a less price.
There are, however, many small breweries, such as those attached
to country inns or to private houses. Some breweries also confine
their business to supplying families with pale and table ales, stout
or porter, in small barrels of four and a half, nine, and eighteen
gallons. The number of breweries in Great Britain—aside from those
which are strictly for private use—is, according to official returns,
twenty-six thousand, two hundred and fourteen, which it will be seen is
about nine times the number in the United States. The cost of good ale
is about one shilling sterling a gallon.
[Illustration: M. T. BASS, ESQ. MP.
THE GREAT BURTON-ON-TRENT BREWER, ENGLAND.]
It is worthy of notice that the brewers of England are distinguished
for a wise generosity and public spirit, and such men as Charington,
Fox, Meux, Alsopp, Hanbury, Buxton, Mann, Truman, Guinness, Walker
and Bass,[17] will be long remembered for the magnificent charities
that ennoble and perpetuate their names. To a greater or less degree
the same characteristic comes to light in every country where beer
is established as the popular beverage. Jacobsen, a brewer of
Copenhagen, before his death set aside $280,000 to found a laboratory
of scientific research. A part of the money is to be spent in keeping
up the laboratories attached to his brewery, in which chemical and
physiological researches are carried on with a view to establish as
completely as possible a scientific basis for brewing and malting.
[17] Michael Thomas Bass, the senior member of Parliament for Derby, is
best known as the largest brewer in the world. He is now over eighty
years old, and has been engaged in the brewery business founded by his
grandfather for about sixty-two years. He was educated at the Buxton
Grammar School, and has supplemented this early instruction by a course
of reading that leaves him not at all behind many University men in
the matter of scholarly attainments. He has always been noted for the
efficient discharge of his public and private duties, and has for more
than thirty years represented the old town of Derby as senior member
of Parliament. His public and private gifts have been frequent and
munificent, the last of importance being a free library for the town of
Derby.
The generous juice of barley, seems to draw out the more kindly and
human feelings of all who have their dealings in it. Can any such thing
be said of distilled liquors?
The late Khedive of Egypt, who has done more for the advancement of
that country than any other ruler since the time of the Pharaohs,
perceived the advantages to be gained by the introduction of beer, and
granted very valuable privileges to a company of Swiss brewers, whose
establishment is now in full and successful operation at Cairo. The
consumption is chiefly in the cities which are largely inhabited by
Europeans, generally disposed to drink beer if it is good and readily
attainable, but sure to use stronger drinks if the beer is wanting, and
perhaps, from the circumstance of residence at a distance from home,
more apt to use any intoxicating liquor to excess.
Japan, a kingdom hardly known to us twenty-five years ago, and now
recognized as one of the most highly civilized in the world, has thus
far suffered very little from intoxicating drinks. Native stimulants
have been used, and in some cases have proved as injurious as strong
whisky, though perhaps more strictly harmful to the individual, and
less so to his family and the community. The people are by nature and
education gentle and polite, and their social manners are in many
particulars a lesson to Europeans. They are usually temperate in all
things, happy and contented. The Mikado, however, wisely considering
that in the growing intercourse of Japan with foreign countries, a
taste for ardent spirits can hardly fail to be developed, unless some
counteracting influence be at work, has decided to foster the erection
of beer breweries, and thus avert as far as possible an impending
danger, while at the same time he gives his subjects an innocent and
refreshing beverage. With this view, the representatives of Japan,
now in Germany, have been directed to enter into arrangements with
well-known brewers, for the erection of large breweries in Yokohama,
Tokio, Saga, Nagasaki and Shidz-u-o-ka.
The Shah of Persia also, is so far convinced of the advantages of beer,
as to have made arrangements during his last visit to Vienna, for
parties there to undertake its introduction in his kingdom.
In Turkey, there are at Constantinople six breweries with an annual
product of about one hundred and twenty thousand gallons. The hops are
imported from Germany, but the other materials are supplied by the
country. After the island of Cyprus passed from Turkish to English
rule, it is worthy of notice that the first shipment by the _Thessalia_
was fifty barrels of beer, a shipment well illustrating English
national habits.
The condition of the beer trade in the United States being part of the
general subject of this book, and especially illustrated in the chapter
under the heading “The Condition and Prospects of the Beer Trade,” and
also in the list of breweries given in Appendix C, needs no remark here.
CHAPTER V.
HOW BEER IS MADE AND WHAT IT IS.
The production of beer, as of all other malt liquors, bears a striking
similarity to the making of bread; the chief difference being in the
quantity of grain employed, and the amount of water added. The one
intended for a solid food is baked, the other for a liquid refreshment
is boiled.
The process of making beer is as follows: A certain quantity of malted
barley is taken and ground, it is then mashed with hot water, the
sweet liquor or wort extracted, a portion of hops added, and the whole
boiled until the preservative quality as well as the aroma of the hops
is obtained. It is then allowed to cool, and afterwards fermented
with yeast to produce the small quantity of alcohol it contains, and
to give it life. According to analyses made by different chemists,
lager beer contains 91.0 water, 5.4 malt extract, 3.5 alcohol, and the
remainder—making in all 100 parts—carbonic acid. Ale and porter differ
only in having a slight additional percentage of alcohol, and a large
amount of solid extract.
The substantial and useful character of the chief ingredient of beer
may be seen from the nature of an analysis of the malt which forms
its basis. The result is from Dr. Lermer, whose researches in this
direction have been of great value.
DRY BARLEY. DRY MALT. DIFFERENCE.
Starch, 63.43 minus 48.86 14.57
Proteic substances, 16.25 minus 15.99 0.26
Dextrine, 6.63 plus 6.86 0.23
Sugar, — plus 2.03 2.03
Fatty matters, 3.08 minus 2.50 0.58
Cellulose, 7.10 plus 7.31 0.21
Other substances, 1.11 plus 3.16 2.05
Ash, 2.40 minus 2.10 0.30
------- -------
100.00 88.81
In the ordinary process of bread fermentation, a portion of the sugar
contained in the flour is decomposed and converted into alcohol. It
has been supposed that the whole of this alcohol was expelled by heat
during baking; but recent experiments indicate that a perceptible
amount still remains in yeast-raised bread after baking. The result of
six experiments, showed that one-third of one per cent. in weight of
alcohol was obtained from fresh baked bread. From forty loaves of fresh
bread, two pounds each, alcohol equal to one bottle of port wine may be
extracted.
The celebrated Professor Balling of Prague, who has spent much time in
the chemical analysis of different fermented beverages, arrives at the
following result in reference to lager beer: “Lager beer manufactured
of malt and hops according to the noble rules of brewing, properly
fermented, stored for some time and perfectly clear, is a healthy
and agreeable beverage, which when partaken of quenches thirst and
strengthens, and thus combines the qualities of water, wine and food.
The water is the thirst-quenching element, the wine the enlivening, the
malt extract (composed of sugar, gum, etc.) the nourishing, and the
carbonic acid gas the refreshing, while the hop extract strengthens the
stomach, helps digestion, acts on the bladder and is grateful to the
human constitution. There is no doubt that lager beer brewed and stored
strictly as before mentioned is hardly intoxicating.”
An impression has gained ground in some quarters that as a matter of
fact, beer is extensively and injuriously adulterated and certain
persons claiming to be well informed have spread statements that
potato starch, grape sugar, glycerine and molasses are added as
substitutes for malt (barley), that Indian corn and rice are used
instead of barley, that pine bark, quassia, walnut leaf, wormwood,
bitter clover, aloes, picric acid, cocculus indicus and strychnine
are substituted for hops, and that various chemicals are used to
neutralize acidity or conceal dilution. A few of the first named would
not be objectionable, unless in point of flavor, and as a matter of
fact all of the substances named may at some time have been used by
irresponsible brewers. A careful inquiry, however, has satisfied us
that the adulteration of beer is rare, and one who reflects on the
lively competition that exists in the trade must see how speedily
and surely such a practice would be detected and exposed by business
rivals. Touching the use of strychnine in particular, Dr. Ure says that
1st. “Strychnine is exceedingly costly.
2d. “It has a most unpleasant bitter, metallic taste.
3d. “It is a notorious poison whose use would ruin the reputation of
any brewer.
4th. “It cannot be introduced into ordinary beer brewed with hops
because it is entirely precipitated by the infusion of that wholesome,
fragrant herb. * * * * Were the _nux-vomica_ powder from which
strychnia is extracted even stealthily thrown into the mash tun, its
dangerous principle would be all infallibly thrown down with the
grounds in the subsequent boiling with the hops.”
When we remember the immense improvement in the quality of American
beer within the past few years and learn how often expensive machinery
and appliances have been abandoned after a short use in favor of
something better, we can hardly believe that brewers who conduct their
business after such a fashion, will at the same time try to make a
petty profit by using poor material and so deteriorating the product on
whose excellence the success of their business depends. The genuineness
of beer from any established brewery may usually be taken for granted.
In 1872 after an extensive examination of beers in Great Britain only
six samples were found to be adulterated.[18]
[18] Encyclopedia Britannica, Art. Brewing.
An effort has been made by many so-called temperance papers to
disseminate an opposite view in this matter and the statements made can
only be excused on the ground of ignorance—which in the circumstances
is inexcusable. No doubt beer has been often adulterated, but to
represent the practice as common or as prevailing in breweries that
expect to live and that have a character to maintain is to speak in
contradiction to the facts and to common sense. Lately at Newark, New
Jersey, charges of this general nature were made by a total abstinence
speaker and the matter was for once taken up by the brewers of the
city, in whose behalf a well known member of the trade addressed the
following letter to the orator of the day:
The REV. W. F. BOOLE, Brooklyn:
SIR—In a lecture delivered by you at Park Hall, Newark, N. J., on
Sunday afternoon, July 13, 1879, you are reported in the _Newark
Morning Register_ to have said: “The traffic is a traffic of compound
poisons, and not even the finest imported liquors are free from
them. Strychnine and stramonium, two deadly poisons, are used in the
manufacture of beer, and a little potash is added to prevent the
taste. Belladonna, one of the most virulent of poisons, is also used,
and not less than 10,000 tons of the deadly cocculus are consumed.
Cocculus is never given as a medicine, but it is drank daily by the
masses in their beer and ale.”
You, as a teacher of religion, should be a lover of truth. On behalf
of the brewers of the United States, I denounce this statement as a
deliberate falsehood, and I challenge you to prove any part of it;
and in the event of your not doing so, or withdrawing your assertion,
I shall not only take steps to publish the fact that you are a
willful perverter of the truth, but also to prosecute you for slander.
Yours truly,
(Signed) C. FEIGENSPAN.
Thereupon the lecturer made answer that the papers had not reported
him correctly. Here the matter might have dropped, and there was
in fact an end of this particular phase of the question. The case,
however, had made a stir and presently a representative of the teetotal
party called at the office of the United States Brewing Association
to collect information which was given him as a matter of course.
Then came a proposition from the same party for a public discussion
on the following extraordinary terms. Twelve propositions were to be
advanced and supported by a practiced speaker on the teetotal side.
The representative of the Newark Brewers was to have an opportunity to
reply to each, and the other speaker was then to sum up and conclude
the discussion. The brewers’ representative had only three days notice
and naturally declined any such arrangement in which all the advantage
was evidently assumed by the other side. The discussion also was to
be confined to one evening, and a collection was to be taken up “to
defray expenses.” The Newark Brewers’ Association, however, expressed
their willingness to debate on fair terms and with one evening for each
proposition, but this arrangement was declined. We have taken pains
to procure the twelve propositions of the total abstinence club, and
append them here chiefly in order to call attention to the fact that
the greater part are especially treated in this book, while the others
are touched incidentally or by direct inference. The propositions are
as follows:
No. 1.—The use of malt liquors is a direct cause of intemperance.
No. 2.—The use of malt liquors tends to the use of stronger liquors.
No. 3.—Malt liquors, if habitually used to any considerable extent,
tend to cause ill-health.
No. 4.—The claim that malt liquors are valuable as food is without
foundation.
No. 5.—As a medicine, malt liquors are of use only to those who do
not ordinarily use them, and are dangerous because of their tendency
to create habit.
No. 6.—The theory that malt liquors can be substituted by consumers
of alcoholic beverages for distilled liquors, to any important
extent, is false.
No. 7.—Beer in this country is far more evil in its effects than in
Germany; but even there its bad effects, as used by the people, are
obvious to every traveler who has no theory to maintain.
No. 8.—The use of beer by the working classes has a direct relation
to poverty.
No. 9.—The use of malt liquors by the masses has a relation to crime,
which, though differing in some respects from that of distilled
liquors, is marked and alarming.
No. 10.—Beer saloons and gardens, as a whole, are demoralizing in
their effects on individuals, families, and especially on children.
No. 11.—The great increase in the use of malt liquors and the
increase in intemperance for the past fifteen years have been
parallel, and are intimately connected.
No. 12.—That beer saloons should be subjected to the same
restrictions under which ordinary grog shops are placed.
Further comment would be superfluous, especially as this whole matter
is, strictly speaking, a digression from the purpose of the chapter,
although one that is so natural as to be almost inevitable.
There has also been much misrepresentation of the views of prominent
men. For instance, the _Religious Herald_ of Hartford, Conn., recently
reprinted an article in which it is asserted that Professor Liebig “has
proved to a certainty that as much flour as can lie on the point of
a table knife is more nutritious than eight quarts of Bavarian beer,
counted the best made. Also that the man who drinks two gallons of
Bavarian beer a day for a year, gets only as much nutriment from his
seven hundred and thirty gallons as he would from one five-pound loaf
of bread or three pounds of flesh!” The article has been extensively
copied all over the country and is calculated to do much harm by
throwing the influence of an important name on a side where it was
never intended to go.
Now it is barely possible that Professor Liebig made such a statement
as to nutriment of a special form, though we are not aware of any
passage that can give the least color to the assertion. On the other
hand his real view appears in such passages as the following: “Pure
lager beer, when taken with lean flesh and little bread yields a diet
approaching to milk; with fat meat, approaching to rice or potatoes.”
And again, “In beer-drinking countries it is the universal medicine
for the healthy as well as for the sick, and it is milk to the aged.”
These views are shared by almost all the eminent men who have made
a scientific study of beer, and the opinions and results reached
by a large number of chemists of high authority will be found in a
subsequent chapter. “We have anticipated thus much here because in
describing beer as it is, it seemed necessary to indicate to some
degree what it is not, at least so far as to explain that it is not
generally adulterated, and is not wholly useless, as a large party
constantly asserts it to be.”
CHAPTER VI.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALE, PORTER AND LAGER BEER.
It has been already mentioned that the earliest beers were made without
hops. After the use of this plant was discovered beer brewing as an
art made rapid progress, and not only did every country make its own
special sort of beer, but many varieties existed side by side in most
of the German states and in England. Experiments were made with all
sorts of grain, with potatoes and with plants and herbs, the object
being in every case to produce a wort whose beer should have special
advantages in point of flavor or cost or both. Gradually, however, most
of the materials were quietly dropped, although potatoes are still used
for the Strasbourg beer, and wheat forms an important element of the
famous white beer of northern Germany. Barley is the grain that has
universally been found best adapted to the purpose of making a brown
beer of an agreeable flavor and of moderate price. With the question
of material thus practically settled, it might be supposed that the
difference between various brews of beer would disappear. On the
contrary the number of varieties is to-day greater than ever before.
Every step in the manufacture, from the selection of the grain and hops
on to the final delivery of the product to the consumer, has something
to do with the characteristics of the beer, and the difficulty does not
lie in producing something new, but in reproducing accurately what has
once been successfully tested.
Whatever the distinguishing features of the product, it is still
beer, and any one specimen of the genus has the general properties of
all the others. All beer has a notably small percentage of alcohol,
the strongest ales and porters showing less than many specimens of
cider; all contain an appreciable amount of solid nutriment which in
some heavy-bodied beers is quite considerable; all are palatable and
wholesome, and all are adapted to take the place of ardent spirits and
thus reduce intemperance and drunkenness to a _minimum_. It is hardly
necessary to explain that in this book the word beer is used in its
wide sense. When special varieties are meant they are spoken of by name
unless the context is such as to remove all doubt.
After the time of experiment and the disuse of most of the grains,
etc., that had been tried, there still remained two well-marked
varieties differing essentially in the mode of fermentation, and
our modern ale and lager beer may be taken as types of the two
kinds. The former is fermented rapidly at a high temperature and the
fermentation checked while a considerable portion of sugar still
remains unchanged, while the latter is fermented slowly and thoroughly
at a low temperature. The first process is the one originally employed
everywhere and has held almost undisputed ground in England, where,
as might in such circumstances be expected, ale-brewing has reached
its most thorough development. At the beginning of the eighteenth
century there were in that country three recognized sorts, ale, beer
and two-penny, differing chiefly in the quantity of malt used for
each kind. These were often mixed to suit customers and in 1730,
to avoid the trouble of constant mixing, a new drink was brewed,
called “entire,” and meant to resemble the triple compound. This was
afterwards known as porter, and at present the general distinction is
between porter and ale, though we still hear of small beer. The variety
of ales, however, is very great. They are made of all colors and all
degrees of strength, very bitter like the pale ale, and sweetish
like the Scotch ale, so long-lived that they can be exported to hot
climates and kept for years, and so short-lived that they must be
used within three or four weeks. Some are perfectly clear and bright,
and resemble nothing so much as Rhine wine, of whose flavor also they
have an indescribable suggestion, while others are dark with solid
extract and possess a characteristic delicate flavor that resembles
nothing else. In this respect America is yet far in the rear. There is
plenty of good ale but there has been no demand sufficient to cause so
varied a supply or to develop so well-marked special flavors. When,
however, we remember for how long a time cider was the common drink
of the people to the exclusion of beer, and see how, in spite of such
an obstacle at the start, the business gradually gained ground, and
when we remember that outside the larger cities, even twenty years
ago, ale was almost sure to be dull and muddy and very apt to be sour,
we must admit that American ale-brewers have accomplished much. They
have succeeded so far as to secure a large sale for their brew, and
so far that now almost anywhere one is certain of a tolerable glass
of beer—unless the existence of a prohibitory law excludes everything
but whisky. Their success appears the more striking because of the
recent great increase in the use of lager beer, for enormous as is the
consumption of the latter it has hardly produced any effect on the
sales of the ale-brewers. There is a large number who prefer the flavor
of ale, others drink it from habit and will always do so, others drink
it because they ape English fashions, others because the comparatively
secluded and unsocial character imported from England to our ale-houses
suits them better than the more social and gregarious customs of the
lager beer garden, some even because it is usually the more costly of
the two beverages. Some doubtless prefer it because it usually contains
a little more alcohol than lager beer, and very many use either beer
indifferently according to circumstances and convenience.
As to porter there is little that need be said. Its origin has been
already mentioned, and when we add that the color is due to browned
malt and its flavor to seeds or the like we have stated all that would
interest the general reader. It is essentially a heavy-bodied ale,
however great the superficial unlikeness.
The difference in the manner of fermentation of ale and lager beer has
been previously indicated, but the following passage from Professor
Liebig will be found of interest: “In that country (Bavaria) the malt
wort is set to ferment in open backs with an extensive surface, and
placed in cool cellars having an atmospheric temperature not exceeding
8° or 10° C (46½ or 50 F.). The operation lasts from three to four
weeks; the carbonic acid is disengaged, not in large bubbles that burst
on the surface of the liquid, but in very small vesicles like those of
a mineral water or of a liquor saturated with carbonic acid when the
pressure is removed. The surface of the fermenting wort is always in
contact with the oxygen of the atmosphere as it is hardly covered with
froth and as all the yeast is deposited at the bottom of the back under
the form of a very viscid sediment, called in German _unterhefe_.”
The process thus described results in the production of a beer which
will not sour even if kept exposed to the air for a long time. Barrels
only half full have remained uninjured for months. It is to be noticed,
however, that both ale and lager beer can be prepared under many
modifications of the main plan, and both are often made for immediate
use without regard to keeping qualities and pass by the names of
present use ale and Schenck beer.
As lager beer usually contains a little less alcohol than ale, it has
been most commonly spoken of by those who are striving to eradicate
intemperance by introducing beer in the place of ardent spirits. The
difference in alcoholic strength is not, however, so great as many
persons suppose, the percentage in ales ranging from 8.88 to 5.36,
while that of lager beer varies from 6.50 to 3.06. The kind of beer to
be preferred for the work in any country is that best suited to the
tastes and traditions of the people. On the continent of Europe and in
America lager beer has thus far played the more prominent part, while
in England the responsibility of all that has been accomplished belongs
to ale.
It is not improbable that the English brewing business has already
reached its culminating point. A large part of the annual product
has long been exported to the colonies, and now these are beginning
to brew beer for themselves and will soon have a supply of their own
make, sufficient in quality and quantity to make them independent of
the mother country. With us the case is different. The consumption is
increasing rapidly, and brewers show a wise liberality in securing
new processes and appurtenances, and spare no effort to improve the
quality of their product. Those who make the best beer secure the
most custom, and the fraternity are fully aware of the fact. All this
rivalry cannot fail to benefit the consumer. Every year sees better
ale and lager beer sent over the country, and every year something is
contributed to the solution of the problem in brewing—to produce a mild
beer that with more extract than is now found shall contain even less
alcohol, and remain bright and refreshing. Whether full success in such
an attempt is to be sooner reached by the ale or lager beer brewers
remains to be seen, or it may well be that some new malt beverage may
be discovered, unlike either of the others and superior to both. Such a
result would be no more striking than other steps in progress already
made, and brewers of large experience are to be found who believe
that some such discovery is impending. In the meantime we have the
satisfaction of knowing that America already produces malt liquors made
from native materials that are wholesome and agreeable and at least up
to the average of similar liquors made in countries where brewing has
been carefully studied and extensively practiced for centuries, while
with us it is chiefly a recent growth. The degree of success that is
possible when we take into account the natural resources of the country
and the enterprising character of the brewers is hardly to be realized.
CHAPTER VII.
THE CONDITIONS AND PROSPECTS OF THE BEER TRADE.
I believe that Germans are destined to be really the greatest
benefactors of this country by bringing to us—if we choose to accept
the boon—their beer. Lager beer contains less alcohol than any of the
native grape wines. This fact, with the other fact, that the Germans
have not the pernicious habits of our people, would, if we choose to
adopt their custom, tend to diminish intemperance in this country.
DR. HENRY J. BOWDITCH,
_Chairman of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts._
Geniesst im edlen Gerstensaft
Des Weines Geist, des Brodes Kraft.
The strength of bread, the fire of wine
O noble barley juice are thine.
TIVOLI.
[Illustration: FREDERICK LAUER’S PARK BREWERY. READING, PA.
_For historical sketch see Appendix C. Page 180._]
The brewing of ale has been so long an established industry in this
country and advances so regularly from year to year as to offer no
striking facts for comment. With lager beer the case is different, and
the rapidity of the increase in its use is something remarkable. Fifty
years ago it was hardly known as a beverage in the United States. Now
and then some good old German would import a keg from his native home
in the old country, to be drunk on the occasion of some great family
festival, and call up in his adopted home thoughts of the merry days
of youth and friendly faces, last seen perhaps in some deep valley of
the Tyrol or in the shadows of a city that was old when the Pilgrims
landed at Plymouth Rock. But in the case of so good a creature as lager
beer such occasional and almost poetical use could not always remain
the only one, and at last a German of Philadelphia conceived the idea
of erecting a lager beer brewery. According to the Hon. Frederick Lauer
of Reading, Pa., (and we have all reason to put implicit faith in his
version) it was introduced by one Wagner, a practical brewer who came
from Germany to the United States in a sailing vessel in the year 1842,
and shortly after landing he brewed the first lager in a miserable
shanty on the outskirts of Philadelphia, and thus became the Gambrinus
of America. (We would here refer the reader to the biographical sketch
of Frederick Lauer, Esq., in Appendix A.)
His success induced another German to try the same experiment on a
small scale in the city of New York, and from this insignificant
beginning the business has increased to its present immense
proportions, so that there are now according to the latest return
of the Internal Revenue Department at Washington, no less than two
thousand eight hundred and thirty ale and lager beer breweries in
active operation. The number is in fact considerably larger than that
given by the Department, owing to the method of returning only those
in actual business at the beginning of the year and to other causes.
The annual product according to the Department figures, is over three
hundred million gallons. More exactly the figures are, 303,147,552
gallons, or 9,473,361 barrels. In addition to this there are numerous
private breweries where beer is made for home consumption but not for
sale, and these do not fall under the Internal Revenue regulations and
are consequently not reported.
Figures as given below in reference to the capital invested in
the brewing, malting and hop business, and taken after careful
investigation from the best sources attainable, will give the reader a
faint idea of its vast extent.
CAPITAL.
Capital invested in 2,830 breweries in operation at the end of
the last fiscal year, (taking the low estimate of $10.00 upon
every barrel of malt beverage produced, viz.: 9,473,361
barrels at $10.00) $94,733,610.00
Capital invested in 485 malt-houses of all dimensions having
altogether a malting capacity of 35,227,984 bushels:
Real estate, $16,567,562.00
Capital invested in the production, 18,620,950.00
----------------- $35,188,512.00
Capital invested in 1,614,654 acres of land under cultivation for
barley, $72,659,430.00
Capital invested in 67,216 acres of land under cultivation for
hops, 2,689,232.00
Capital invested in gathering ice needed for brewers, 15,000,000.00
Capital invested in fodder of all kinds, 5,000,000.00
LABOR.
Men employed in breweries now in operation; men 22,640;
annual wages, $13,584,000.00
Men employed in malt-houses; men 3,045; annual wages, 1,324,575.00
Men employed in the culture of barley, 10 men to every 100
acres; men 16,446; annual wages, 4,844,000.00
Help employed in the culture of hops, 1 person to every 10
acres; persons 6,721; annual wages, 2,016,630.00
All other adjuncts necessary as capital invested by architects,
builders, wagon and harness-makers, coppersmith, coopers,
machinists, etc., will amount to not less than, 60,000,000.00
---------------
Total, $307,039,989.00
A glance at the figures just quoted is enough to show that this branch
of industry has become very important. Such a production implies
the contribution of a large amount of capital, and after careful
investigation of the most trustworthy _data_ we find that there
are more than three hundred million dollars invested in breweries,
malt-houses and other adjuncts of the manufacture of beer in the
United States. The direct investment however, is not the only thing to
be considered. A business of this magnitude furnishes occupation not
merely to vast numbers of laborers, but also to thousands of men who
follow some profession or trade, such as architects, civil engineers,
masons, carpenters, coopers, coppersmiths, wagon and harness-makers,
and the like.
The following table exhibits the production of the various states and
territories for the last year, together with the increase or decrease
as compared with the previous year, and also the amount of brewers’
manufacturing tax collected:
BREWERS’ MFG.
NAME. BBLS. INCREASE. DECREASE. TAX COLLECTED.
North Carolina, 4 4 —— $100
Maine, 7 —— 7,024 ——
Alabama, 74 —— 110 ——
Arkansas, 104 —— 6 100
Vermont, 173 —— 112 115
South Carolina, 586 —— 246 100
New Mexico, 847 —— 164 245
Arizona, 1,030 299 —— 100
Idaho, 1,207 457 —— 100
Wyoming, 4,227 —— 132 260
Dakota, 4,548 1,213 —— 640
Montana, 4,596 1,005 —— 580
Georgia, 5,690 —— 1,319 620
Delaware, 7,387 215 —— 250
Washington, 7,473 544 —— 480
Utah, 7,909 25 —— 205
Texas, 9,585 —— 4,859 2,362.49
Tennessee, 10,278 9,572 —— 320.84
Nevada, 12,002 —— 387 1,640
Oregon, 13,028 2,776 —— 1,480.50
Virginia, 14,302 —— 1,195 316.67
Colorado, 21,185 1,242 —— 360.50
W. Virginia, 22,157 Same Amount. —— 858.83
Kansas, 24,102 1,801 —— 1,890.67
Nebraska, 28,403 4,455 —— 2,460.75
Rhode Island, 32,510 4,514 —— 2,640.50
Louisiana, 38,275 375 —— 2,210.30
Connecticut, 51,235 —— 8,239 2,008.34
Minnesota, 103,020 12,329 —— 9,435.82
New Hampshire, 113,740 —— 4,954 8,760.40
Kentucky, 116,493 15,810 —— 3,570.88
Indiana, 170,573 7,881 —— 6,937.49
Iowa, 171,951 14,271 —— 11,449.99
Michigan, 185,606 —— 2,592 11,266.67
Maryland, 218,642 9,496 —— 6,583.35
California, 346,369 —— 5,628 15,327.91
Wisconsin, 463,409 20,345 —— 17,954.17
New Jersey, 478,782 —— 11,979 5,608.34
Missouri, 507,963 46,793 —— 5,762.50
Illinois, 550,976 29,270 —— 11,470.82
Massachusetts, 572,098 77,639 —— 3,904.22
Ohio, 908,254 89,468 —— 17,066.70
Pennsylvania, 957,060 —— 20,848 17,358.05
New York. 3,285,498 125,646 —— 32,601.01
The percentage yielded by the several leading states to the total
government income from malt beverages during the last fiscal year is
shown in the following table:
New York having 405 Breweries, contributed 34.31 per cent.
Pennsylvania “ 383 “ “ 10.07 “ “
Ohio “ 207 “ “ 9.41 “ “
Massachusetts “ 35 “ “ 5.94 “ “
Illinois “ 154 “ “ 5.75 “ “
Missouri “ 65 “ “ 5.21 “ “
New Jersey “ 69 “ “ 5.00 “ “
Wisconsin “ 248 “ “ 4.89 “ “
California “ 213 “ “ 3.69 “ “
Maryland “ 82 “ “ 2.31 “ “
Michigan “ 141 “ “ 2.13 “ “
Iowa “ 150 “ “ 1.94 “ “
Indiana “ 101 “ “ 1.82 “ “
Kentucky “ 34 “ “ 1.24 “ “
New Hampshire “ 4 “ “ 1.20 “ “
Minnesota “ 140 “ “ 1.17 “ “
All other States
and Territories “ 399 “ “ 3.92 “ “
----- ------
2,830 Breweries. 100.00
It thus appears that 96.08 per cent. of the revenue was derived from
the sixteen states just mentioned. They contain 2431 breweries as
against 399 in the remaining states and territories. The stamps issued
to brewers during the year indicate a sale of 9,473,361 barrels, put up
as follows:
In hogsheads, 1,140,361 barrels.
In barrels, 1,220,000 “
In half-barrels, 1,325,000 “
In quarter “ 4,650,000 “
In third “ 71,000 “
In sixth “ 277,000 “
In eighth “ 790,000 “
---------
9,473,361
Enormous as the above figures may seem we are to remember that a great
majority of the breweries in the country have been erected within
the last fifteen years, and it is certain that no other branch of
industry can show equal progress during the same time. The following
tables, showing the imports and exports of beer for the past few years,
demonstrate the strong position American beer is taking at home and
abroad. The imports decrease. The exports increase, and this is the
best proof that our brewers produce an article which is equal if not
superior to the foreign, and we have no doubt that with the help of
wise laws they will soon be enabled to compete with those of any nation
and thus not only enrich the coffers of the United States Treasury but
add in other ways to the welfare of our great country.
IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN BEER INTO THE UNITED STATES.
Gallons. Value in Dollars.
1872, 1,989,713 $1,485,781.00
1873, 2,289,053 1,827,763.00
1874, 2,088,858 1,752,559.00
1875, 2,167,251 1,742,120.00
1876, 1,490,150 1,161,467.00
1877, 974,277 758,850.00
1878, 767,709 592,707.00
EXPORT OF BEER OF DOMESTIC PRODUCE.
IN BOTTLES. IN CASKS.
/--------^--------\ /--------^--------\
DOZENS. VALUE IN GALLONS. VALUE IN
DOLLARS. DOLLARS.
1870, 1,076 $2,250 66,467 $23,759.00
1871, 1,570 4,077 105,213 34,301.00
1872, 2,205 5,340 77,639 27,829.00
1873, 3,443 7,712 103,009 36,743.00
1874, 2,897 6,245 99,135 33,357.00
1875, 3,633 7,600 61,661 16,604.00
1876, 7,045 13,007 99,310 29,657.00
1877, 37,876 51,077 144,244 40,138.00
1878, 76,475 108,279 119,579 38,918.00
It will be seen from this table that whilst the export of beer in casks
has not considerably increased, the increase in the export of bottled
beer has been very large. In 1870 we exported 1,076 dozens, and in
1878, 76,475 dozen! This trade has especially been encouraged by the
Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, as it enabled us to show to the
world the quality of our production.
The gigantic establishments that, in many cases cover entire blocks,
are monuments of very lucrative enterprise and ought to be the pride
of the American people. The truth is, that, notwithstanding a yearly
sale of more than 300,000,000 gallons, the consumption of beer is
yet in its infancy. With an increasing number of persons it ceases
to be a luxury and takes rank with the other articles of daily food.
The demand for it in all parts of the United States is increasing so
rapidly that existing breweries are enlarged and improved, and new ones
are springing up in every direction. In Appendices D, E and B will be
found a list of breweries in the United States with the names of the
proprietors and the product of each, together with the total product by
States, as also the production _per capita_ in the various countries of
Europe, the total production in the same countries, and the number of
breweries in each, and we trust that these tables will not only be of
service to the trade and to students of this question, but also serve
to give some prominence to the men who have done much for the advance
of genuine temperance and who deserve a more substantial recognition
than any it is in our power to give.
All this progress is a natural result of the actual benefits beer has
bestowed on mankind, and these again follow logically and as might be
expected from its constitution, containing as it does a large portion
of water from which all organic impurities are eliminated, a certain
quantity of nutritive malt extract and a very small percentage of pure
alcohol, obtained by fermentation and entirely free from the injurious
properties it acquires in distillation, together with some of the
carbonic acid gas so thoroughly approved by consumers of soda water. It
offers to the public a beverage at once healthy, nutritious, and mildly
stimulating, and as refreshing and exhilarating as tea, coffee or cocoa.
[Illustration: JOSEPH SCHLITZ BREWING COMPANY.
HENRY UIHLEIN, ALFRED UIHLEIN, Sup^t. AUG. UIHLEIN, President.
Secretary.
MILWAUKEE.
_H. GUGLER & SON. GEN^L. LITHO^S. MILWAUKEE._
FOR HISTORICAL SKETCH, SEE APPENDIX C. PAGE 180.]
Those who travel know very well the injurious effect of a change of
water. In no two districts are the waters alike, and we could point to
many instances where removal from East to West or from North to South
and the consequent change of water has resulted in disastrous effects
upon individuals. Any inconvenience of this sort would be diminished
or altogether avoided by means of a free use of beer. Another similar
advantage of beer is mentioned by Joseph Coppinger in his work on
brewing, called “The American Practical Brewer, etc.,” published in
New York in 1815. After recommending new ale as a preventive and yeast
as an antidote to malarial fever, he continues: “Brewing, in every
country, whose soil and climate are congenial to the production of the
raw materials, should be ranked among the first objects of its domestic
and political economy. But a still more important consideration is the
health and morals of our population, which appears to be essentially
connected with the progress of the brewing trade. In proof of this
assertion, I will beg leave to state a well-known fact; which is,
that in proportion as the consumption of malt liquors have increased
in towns, in that proportion has the health of our fellow-citizens
improved, and epidemics and intermittents become less frequent. In the
country it is well known that those families who make frequent use of
good beer during the summer, are in general healthy, and preserve their
color; whilst their less fortunate neighbors, who do not use beer at
all, are devoured by fevers and intermittents. These facts will be
less doubted when it is known that yeast, properly administered, has
been found singularly successful in the cure of fevers.” The views
thus expressed more than sixty years ago have recently received much
attention and are now advocated by many eminent authorities who hold
that they are confirmed by both fact and theory.
The sum of the whole is that the beer brewing business has within
a short time increased immensely—and strictly on the more general
recognition of the merits of the product—and that there is every
reason to anticipate at least an equal increase in the near future.
Beer is already taking the place of ardent spirits and mixed drinks,
and not long ago there appeared in the New York _Sun_ the complaint of
a bar-keeper who said in substance that the occupation of a skilled
compounder of fancy drinks was gone, for anybody could draw beer and
beer was what everybody wanted. Large gatherings now are more orderly
than a few years ago and the reason is to be found in the general use
of beer instead of whisky. At Coney Island the proprietors speak of
the change as wonderful, and say that but for beer they could not get
on, while now a disorderly occurrence is rare, no matter how great the
throng. The same thing may be seen at the various races and in all such
great assemblages of people who gather for enjoyment, and under the old
regime were sure to become riotous.
CHAPTER VIII.
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES OF BEER OVER DISTILLED OR SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
The peculiar advantages of beer as a wholesome and refreshing beverage,
as compared with either ardent spirits or water have never been so
clearly displayed as in the late war between France and Germany—and
it may with truth be asserted, that it has triumphantly withstood the
trial, and fully maintained its reputation.
The German military surgeons, in their official report to the Imperial
medical board, bear witness to the superiority of beer over wine. They
not only state that the refreshing quality of the carbonic acid gas
contained in beer makes it especially grateful to men fatigued by a
long march, or exhausted by a day’s fighting, but lay still greater
stress on its usefulness in the hospital and ambulance, and say that
when it could be obtained it was administered with great success as
a cordial, both to the wounded, and to convalescent soldiers placed
for the time under their care. They add the interesting fact, that
throughout that campaign the wounded invariably evinced a great longing
for beer and that when brought into hospital with shattered limbs or
severe cuts or gun-shot wounds, their first request was usually for a
glass of beer. The same was true after severe operations, and the drink
was found to compose and fortify their unstrung nerves. The natural
inclination to beer as a restorative was very conspicuous among the
soldiers who were on exposed outpost duty during the cold weather at
the time of the blockade and siege of Paris. The supply was scanty,
and common soldiers did not hesitate to pay army followers a large
price for a glass containing only a few mouthfuls of beer. The report
of the Director General of the medical staff of the Imperial army is
in the same tone, and concludes with a strong recommendation not only
to supply the soldiers with rations of beer instead of spirits when
employed on active duty, but also to introduce it as the usual beverage
of the army in time of peace and when on home service.
Professor Moleschott, the distinguished physiologist, in his work
on the chemistry of food, treats of beer and makes the following
statements: “The weak alcoholic solution called beer contains nearly
the same proportion of albumen as is found in fruits, some sugar and
gum, and another constituent which is composed of carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen, is soluble in water and is called the bitter principle of hops.
* * * Fermented liquors, particularly lager beer taken in moderation,
increase the secretion of the digestive juices and promote the solution
of the food, and further, a good lager beer partakes of all the
advantages of the alcoholic beverages and at the same time quenches
thirst by the large amount of water it contains. Hence lager beer is
particularly adapted to satisfy the frequent thirst caused by physical
exercise, and it is a laudable custom to refresh artisans who have to
work hard, with a glass of this beverage. Its albumen, equal to that of
fruit, even supplies a direct substitute for food.”
To this we may add that a laborer who has repeatedly experienced its
invigorating property will by no means admit the truth of the assertion
that a half-pound loaf of bread and a pint of water are more supporting
than a pint of beer. A glass of good beer may often be better than food
or physic. We do not always want food and we seldom need physic, but
a glass of beer is often a useful refreshment when the stomach is not
prepared for the one and the system has no need of the other. Excessive
physical labor, long Endurance of hunger, or anything else which has a
debilitating influence, affects the appetite for solid food and unfits
the stomach for its reception. At such times beer has an excellent
effect, both in affording some present refreshment and in preparing
the system for more substantial food—and no such advantage can be
found in the use of water, and nothing like an equivalent in that of
ardent spirits. Richmond Sheen, an eminent authority, says: “That beer
is nutritive and salubrious cannot be doubted. It proves a refreshing
drink and an agreeable and valuable stimulus and support to those who
have to undergo much bodily fatigue.”
In cases of mental depression too, a glass of beer has often the same
good effect as food after physical exhaustion. On this point Professor
T. K. Chambers of New York very justly says: “It is certain that the
habitual use of some stimulant, particularly beer, bestows on a large
class the nervous energy necessary to digest food enough to exist
upon and get through other vital functions. By this stimulus they are
enabled to be useful members of society instead of the mere drones they
must become during the rest of their existence under a total abstinence
regime.”
The records of disease and the bills of mortality in beer-drinking
countries show longer lives and a less percentage of sickness than
prevail where malt liquors are replaced by other beverages.[19] Not
only is this true but the social condition of the people is better
in countries where beer is recognized and encouraged by government,
and a very striking illustration of this truth may be found through a
comparison of the state of Maine and the kingdom of Bavaria. Bavaria
is the most noted beer-drinking country on the globe and Maine is
distinctively known as the prohibitory state. The forms of government
are radically different and an American naturally holds that the
republican is superior to the monarchical, _i. e._, tends to promote
the greater happiness of the individual. Let us see what can be learned
about the matter, and first as to the terms of the comparison.
[19] The Germans are the healthiest class of New Yorkers. Statistics
show that the mortality among them is nearly 38 per cent. less than
that of other citizens, while their increase by births is larger,
and the same is found to be generally true of Germans all over this
continent.
The advantages and disadvantages in the struggle for existence are
about equal in amount though naturally different in character. In
Bavaria, society is old, habits strong, the fetters of trade not easily
broken, untilled land scarce and the population dense. In Maine there
is abundance of new land, much timber yet unconsumed, no limits on a
choice of occupation, a new society and a sparse population. The state
has a climate that stimulates to industry and the men pride themselves
on their strength and energy. In Bavaria few receive aid from the
state or the municipality; while in Maine, the records in this respect
are frightful. Maine has in addition all the advantages that can be
obtained by means of the most stringent prohibitory law ever devised,
a law that, according to its advocates, must tend to secure peace,
prosperity and happiness. Which of these countries should have most
paupers, men who are unable to find their own living and are supported
at the cost of the state? As a matter of fact the number in Bavaria is
very small while the record of Maine is bad not merely in comparison
with the old monarchy but as set against that of the United States
at large. The last census shows one pauper to every 171.65 of the
population of Maine, while the pauper rate of the whole country was
only one in 502.47.
Again, the condition of Bavaria is such as favors emigration to a
large extent, yet her population, in spite of it, increased 4.5 per
cent. during the last census decade while that of Maine decreased
.02 _per cent._ during the same time, and _Maine was the only state
in the Union where a decrease occurred_. We have seen that in the
original comparison the _pros_ and _cons_ were pretty equally balanced.
The difference is that Bavaria encourages the use of beer and Maine
prohibits it. It must not, however, be supposed that the prohibitory
law suppresses the sale of spirituous drinks. On this point abundant
evidence will be shortly presented, and we need only say here that we
know on the best authority that “no one need go without his whisky in
Maine, though a glass of beer is not to be had for love or money.” The
reason is obvious, beer is bulky and difficult of concealment while
spirits can be easily hidden. In this connection notice that in the
United States between 1860 and 1870 the production of beer rose from
something more than a million barrels to over eight million and that
during the same time the pauper rate decreased from one in 379.09 to
one in 502.47, a striking and very significant fact which may well be
commended to the attention of our legislators and others interested in
the connection between the proverbial thrift of the German emigrant
here and his indulgence in beer. The intellectual advance of the
beer-drinking countries is so notorious as to need no special comment
here.
At present a recapitulation of some characteristic national habits in
the matter of drinking, things well known to every one who has given
the subject attention, will serve both as a further illustration of the
superiority of beer over other beverages and as a comment on what has
been previously said of the modern history of beer-drinking in the more
important civilized countries of the world.
The Scotchman drinks his “mountain dew,” a strong whisky containing
over 54 per cent. of alcohol,—and Scotland has long been noted for
intemperance. The Russian grows sullen and sluggish over his vadka
or kwass, containing 52.68 _per cent._ of alcohol, and drunkenness
and crime follow as natural results. The volatile Italians and
Spaniards drink their mild wines as freely as their mothers’ milk and
do not disgrace themselves or become a nuisance to others by beastly
intoxication. Frenchmen were formerly to be placed in the same category
but recent debates in the French Academy of medicine have developed the
fact that in parts of France and in some Swiss cantons the powerful and
seductive influence of brandy, absinthe and schnapps has diminished the
consumption of wine and gone far to undermine the health and morals
of the people. The excitable Irishman drinks eagerly and rapidly his
strong whisky which contains more than 57 per cent. of pure alcohol
and rouses all his combative qualities so that merry-making is almost
sure to end in a fight, and trials of strength or skill which begin
in good feeling end with broken heads and general tumult. The more
sedate German drinks slowly, with much smoke and animated conversation,
a beer which has only about four _per cent._ of alcohol. He imbibes
great quantities and may become merry or dull according to the length
of his potations, but he rarely if ever fights. The Englishman drinks
much in a solid matter-of-fact way, but is learning to substitute
beer for a great part of the stronger liquor he formerly consumed and
becoming temperate in the same ratio. The American Republic, though
chiefly British in its origin and therefore inheriting a taste for
strong liquors, has become by immigration truly cosmopolitan, and is
on the high road to temperance secured by a general use of fermented
drinks. One great obstacle in the way is the wonderful variety
of “fancy drinks,” whose names catch the ear as surely as their
ingredients tickle the palate. They entice young and old, seduce by
their novelty or piquancy and carry many thousands on the straight
road to drunkenness and its accompanying moral and physical wreck. The
practice of “treating” is also very common and very injurious. It leads
to a hasty and immoderate consumption that has little or no regard to
the requirements of the individual and has by some been considered
the real foundation stone of a habit of intemperance. The Rev. Henry
Ward Beecher, in a recent address before the Business Men’s Society of
Brooklyn, favored “moderation in drinking and total abstinence from
treating.” He said he never drank beer until he was sixty years old,
after which time he became fond of it, and evidently believed that its
use is a means to temperance for the people. There are many who might
say nearly the same thing. We are learning to appreciate malt drinks
and the tendency is unmistakable, although it must be admitted that, on
the whole, the disposition of the people is, as yet, more nearly like
that of the Celt than the Teuton.
Mr. W. A. Lawrence of Waterville, N. Y., in a paper chiefly devoted
to facts respecting the growth of hops, thus speaks of the general
question—beer _versus_ whisky: “The fact is that the quality of beer,
as a light and refreshing drink, has been wonderfully improved within
the past few years. A bottle of beer to-day has but about half the
strength of the beer of twenty years ago, and half the strength of
ordinary wine and cider. The beer of to-day is just what the American
people want—a cool, mildly refreshing, stimulating and palatable drink.
Wine is too expensive for a common drink. Cider is too sour and strong.
Whisky is not a drink at all but a drug, and you have to take water
after it as you do after taking other drugs, and it ought to be kept in
a drug-store for sale and nowhere else. But beer is not only agreeable
and refreshing and cheap, but it is mild, and generally peaceful and
good-humored in its effects. It is true a man can get drunk on it,
but a man won’t. A hog may, but most beer-drinkers are not hogs, but
hard-working men who know what they want and what fills the bill, and
if they wanted to get drunk they would drink whisky and get a good deal
bigger drunk at less expense and in half the time.
“The great majority of the beer-drinkers in America are these same
hard-working men and women, who also drink beer with their food as we
all do our tea and coffee. But in addition to these, who are mostly
our German citizens, there are thousands of men, old Americans, who
have learned to love beer, who will drink it as long as they live and
will live the longer for drinking it. It is among the native Americans
that the demand for beer and hops is increasing. The Germans always
did drink for fifteen generations back, as much as they could hold,
and in spite of all the theories of our anti-beer, total abstinence
friends, the Germans in Germany and in this country seem to be still
above ground; and so far as this country is concerned, as myself, an
American citizen, and the son of American ancestry for five generations
back, I wish to God we could trade off about two millions of native
American whisky-drinkers now in the “solid South,” for two millions
of hard-working Germans who would do their own work, and drink their
own beer, and keep clear of fights and strikes and riots and greenback
conventions, as they keep clear of them here in the North to-day.
“Now everybody knows that whisky is full of the devil and that beer is
full of humor and good fellowship; and it can hardly fail to rejoice
the heart of every good hop-grower to find that in raising hops for
beer he is incidentally engaged in the great “temperance movement” of
leading men away from bad whisky to good beer. I know this is not what
the professional temperance lecturers say, but what do I care what
they say? A temperance lecturer is generally a retired whisky drinker
and can see snakes in everything, including beer. Or he is a clergyman
and has acquired the habit of talking with no one to contradict him
and hence is careless of his facts. Or he is a paid professional, and
knows that if war is made on whisky alone, whisky would soon be driven
to the drug-store and no more temperance lecturers needed or paid for.
I do not hesitate to affirm that I know more about beer by experience
and contact and study than the whole crowd of temperance lecturers put
together. They ‘mean well’ to be sure; and so do I. The difference
between us lies in the fact that they don’t know what they are talking
about, and I do, because I am personally familiar with something like
a thousand breweries in the United States and have peculiar advantages
for information.
“And I am sick and tired of sitting in churches built by hops, whose
clergymen’s salaries are paid by hops, whose congregations live by
hops, and that is by beer at first or second hand, and there listening
to wholesale denunciations of beer, and even to cold-blooded,
cold-water propositions to pass a general United States law making it
illegal to manufacture beer anywhere in the country. One hop-grower
who paid out over two thousand dollars to the poor women and children
of one village last fall for picking hops, got up and left a church
where some of this anti-beer nonsense was being aired, but as a general
thing a man can talk against beer in a hop church with as little
restraint as a missionary to Greenland feels in preaching hell-fire to
his shivering congregation. The brewer is far away, and the connection
between hops and beer is kept carefully out of sight. But to a carnal
mind like mine it does seem a mean trick for a hop-grower to send out
a hop-dealer with a flag of truce to the brewers and sell him hops in
a friendly way, and meanwhile the hop-grower is lying in ambush behind
a stack of hop-poles, ready as soon as his hops are sold to blaze away
at the brewer with a prohibition bullet or ballot. I believe there
are very few hop-growers who are capable of such meanness as this,
but I do believe there are a great many who do not realize the close
connection between hops and beer, and to these I say respectfully, as
I did two years ago in a prominent hop paper, ‘If you believe beer
is a bad thing, plow up your hop-yards and put in corn and potatoes.
It is true that somebody may turn the corn and potatoes into whisky,
but that is not your fault. Corn and potatoes must be had for food.
But there is no such excuse as this in the case of hops. The hops are
raised on purpose for beer. Not one bale in a hundred is used for
yeast or medicine. Therefore you are the “outside man” of the brewery,
and if beer is a fraud you are a party to a fraud, and you are not
an honest man. We believe that the making of beer is an honest and
praiseworthy occupation, no better and no worse than any other branch
of manufacturing goods that are wanted either for use or pleasure.’
“When I say we, I mean the men who believe in a radical distinction
between fermented liquors and distilled. Such men as Rev. Dr. Howard
Crosby, and Dr. William A. Hammond, formerly medical director of the
United States army, and Dr. Willard Parker, the leading practicing
physician of New York, and a most earnest Christian man. Dr. Parker
says in the _Christian Union_: ‘Fermented liquor is the work of God;
distilled liquor is the work of man or the devil or both.’ ‘It is
the still that does the harm. It is the still that takes the alcohol
out of its proper place in a liquid where it is not ordinarily found
in a larger proportion than six or seven per cent., and where it
rarely intoxicates, and never if taken in moderate quantities, and
concentrates it in a substance that is a deadly poison. Take away the
still and we should have peace and plenty on earth. We could then leave
the vinous liquors alone. I would compromise with all my heart on that
ground, and I would go to work and preach just as old Solomon did:
Don’t use too much.’ If with such men as Crosby and Hammond and Parker
you believe beer should be distinguished from whisky, then go and raise
your hops; pick them clean and get clean money. Take your glass of beer
like an honest man when you feel it will do you good. Let it alone like
an honest man when you think it will do you harm, just as you would a
cup of coffee when you were bilious. Sign no pledges, nor encourage
your children to sign them, except those against distilled liquors.
Encourage no temperance movement that does not move in the right
direction—against whisky and in favor of beer as a temperance drink; a
drink that is killing out whisky faster than whisky killed Ireland, a
drink that will build up the American constitution as it has built up
the German.”
We append tables showing the percentage of alcohol in a great variety
of wines, spirits, malt and fermented liquors, according to analyses
made by Brande, Gerhardt, Liebig, Prof. A. B. Prescott, Dr. Andrew Ure,
William Ripley Nichols, professor at the Technological Institute of
Massachusetts, and other chemists of well known reputation.
PORTUGUESE WINES.
Port contains 14.27 to 25.83 per cent. of alcohol.
Bucella “ 18.49 “ “ “ “
SPANISH WINES.
Sherry contains 13.98 to 23.86 per cent. of alcohol.
Malaga “ 17.26 to 18.94 “ “ “ “
MADEIRA AND CANARY ISLANDS.
Madeira contains 14.9 to 24.42 per cent. of alcohol.
Malmsey “ 12.86 to 16.40 “ “ “ “
FRENCH WINES.
Claret contains 12.91 to 17.11 per cent. of alcohol.
Claret Chateau Latour “ 7.78 “ “ “ “
Claret Vin Ordinaire “ 8.99 “ “ “ “
Champagne “ 11.30 to 13.80 “ “ “ “
Burgundy “ 12.10 to 16.00 “ “ “ “
Hermitage “ 12.32 to 17.43 “ “ “ “
Sauterne “ 14.22 “ “ “ “
Frontignac “ 12.79 “ “ “ “
ITALIAN WINES.
Marsala contains 18.20 to 20.03 per cent. of alcohol.
Lacryma Christi “ 19.70 “ “ “ “
Falernian “ 18.99 “ “ “ “
CAPE WINES.
Cape Madeira contains 18.11 to 22.94 per cent. of alcohol.
Constantia “ 14.50 to 19.75 “ “ “ “
Muscat “ 18.25 “ “ “ “
PERSIAN WINE.
Sheraaz contains 12.95 to 19.80 per cent. of alcohol.
BRITISH WINES, CIDER, ETC.
Grape contains 18.11 per cent. of alcohol.
Raisin “ 23.30 to 26.40 “ “ “ “
Currant “ 20.55 “ “ “ “
Gooseberry “ 11.84 “ “ “ “
Orange “ 11.26 “ “ “ “
Elder “ 8.79 “ “ “ “
Mead “ 7.32 “ “ “ “
Cider “ 5.21 to 9.87 “ “ “ “
Perry “ 7.26 “ “ “ “
HUNGARIAN WINES.
Tokay contains 9.88 per cent. of alcohol.
Red Wine “ 13.20 to 19.04 “ “ “ “
White Wine “ 12.10 to 12.16 “ “ “ “
GERMAN WINES.
Hochheimer contains 8.88 to 14.37 per cent. of alcohol.
Johannisberger “ 8.71 “ “ “ “
Rüdesheimer “ 6.90 to 12.22 “ “ “ “
Rhenish Wine “ 7.00 to 7.58 “ “ “ “
OHIO WINES.
According to analyses received from Messrs. Parisette Bro’s, N. Y.,
and made five times within
six months, contain 6.11 to 11.30 per cent. of alcohol.
CALIFORNIA WINES.
White and Red, dry, contains 8.40 to 12.90 per cent. of alcohol.
Sweet Wines “ 6.20 to 13.80 “ “ “ “
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
Irish Whisky contains 53.90 per cent. of alcohol.
Scotch Whisky “ 54.52 “ “ “ “
Holland Gin “ 53.80 “ “ “ “
French Brandy “ 53.40 “ “ “ “
St. Croix Rum “ 53.68 “ “ “ “
Batavian Arrack “ 53.70 “ “ “ “
Russian Vadka or Kwass “ 52.68 “ “ “ “
Ordinary American Whisky
contains 52.60 “ “ “ “
Bourbon Whisky contains 51.00 “ “ “ “
Whisky with much foreign matter
contains 44.50 “ “ “ “
ENGLISH MALT LIQUORS.
Ale—Burton contains 8.88 per cent. of alcohol.
“ Edinburgh “ 6.22 “ “ “ “
“ London “ 6.20 “ “ “ “
Brown Stout “ 6.80 “ “ “ “
London Porter “ 4.80 “ “ “ “
London Small Beer “ 2.56 “ “ “ “
Edinburgh Beer “ 5.36 to 7.35 “ “ “ “
GERMAN BEER.
Bavarian Augustiner contains 3.40 to 6.80 per cent. of alcohol.
Salvator “ 4.02 to 4.20 “ “ “ “
Vienna “ 4.20 to 5.60 “ “ “ “
Berlin Tivoli “ 4.60 “ “ “ “
Berlin Tivoli Export “ 5.40 “ “ “ “
Copenhagen “ 5.04 “ “ “ “
AMERICAN MALT LIQUORS AND CIDER.
New York Porter contains 6.20 to 8.40 per cent. of alcohol.
New York Ale “ 5.40 to 6.90 “ “ “ “
Albany Ale “ 5.40 to 6.20 “ “ “ “
Lager Beer “ 3.06 to 6.50 “ “ “ “
American Cider “ 5.80 to 11.60 “ “ “ “
Two analyses of beer brewed in the celebrated Brauerei Koenigstadt, of
Berlin, were found to give the following results:
Alcohol 4.501 per cent. by weight.
Saccharine 1.893 “ “ “ “
Dextrine 0.861 “ “ “ “
Albuminoids 0.630 “ “ “ “
Hop-bitter, extractive and saline matter 2.296 “ “ “ “
Acid 0.005 “ “ “ “
Unfermented extract 5.680 per cent.
The second analysis was of dark colored beer, and was as follows:
Alcohol 4.250 per cent. by weight.
Saccharine 1.950 “ “ “ “
Dextrine 1.053 “ “ “ “
Albuminoids 0.621 “ “ “ “
Hop-bitter, extractive and saline matter 3.386 “ “ “ “
Acids 0.005 “ “ “ “
Unfermented extract 7.010 per cent.
Good lager beer properly brewed and fermented, and stored for some
time, should contain in one hundred parts, 90 water, 5.6 malt extract,
3.50 alcohol, and the remainder carbonic acid.
The following analyses show more particularly the percentage of extract
and of alcohol contained in the best known varieties of lager beer of
this country:
EXTRACT. ALCOHOL.
New York, 3.6 per cent. 4.8 per cent.
“ “ 3.7 “ “ 4.4 “ “
“ “ 4.2 “ “ 5.3 “ “
Staten Island, 3.2 “ “ 5.9 “ “
Milwaukee, 4.3 “ “ 5.6 “ “
Newark, 4.2 “ “ 5.6 “ “
Philadelphia, 4.2 “ “ 6.0 “ “
Chicago, 3.9 “ “ 5.2 “ “
Cincinnati, 3.4 “ “ 5.5 “ “
Boston, 3.6 “ “ 5.6 to 6.0 “ “
Hartford, 3.6 “ “ 4.9 “ “
A similar table made after results obtained by C. F. Chandler and
embracing several kinds of ales and lager beers reads as follows:
----------------------+-----------------+---------------------
| |CONTENTS PER IMPERIAL
| PERCENTAGE. | PINT.
+--------+--------+---------+-----------
| | |OUNCES OF|OUNCES OF
|ALCOHOL.|EXTRACT.| ALCOHOL.|EXTRACT.
----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-----------
Allsop’s Burton Ale | 8.25 | 13.32 | 2.16 | 2.77
Bass’s Ale | 8.41 | 11.75 | 2.18 | 2.42
Edinburgh Ale | 4.41 | 3.58 | 1.12 | .72
Guinness Stout | 6.81 | 6.17 | 1.74 | 1.25
Munich Lager Beer | 4.70 | 6.10 | 1.19 | 1.22
Munich Schenck Beer | 3.90 | 5.07 | 1.00 | 1.16
Munich Bock Beer | 4.60 | 9.02 | 1.17 | 1.90
New York Lager Beer | 5.86 | 4.32 | 1.48 | .88
----------------------+--------+--------+---------+-----------
In this table the term extract includes all the substances left when
the alcohol and water are removed by evaporation.
In view of the figures above given and of the fact that the lighter
beers form the bulk of the malt liquor consumed in the country, we are
safe in assuming an average alcoholic strength of not more than 5½ per
cent. for the total product. This product we have already seen to be
9,473,361 barrels, which, on the basis just assumed, yields 521,034
barrels or 16,673,088 gallons of alcohol. Now according to statistics
from the department at Washington the consumption of native spirits was
in 1878 over 70,000,000 gallons containing about 37,000,000 gallons
of alcohol. The cost of the native and foreign ardent spirits, wines
and liquors used in one year reaches $500,000,000, and it is among the
drinkers of spirits that we find most of the pauperism and crime of the
country. Those who drink beer use something that as far as alcohol is
concerned is more expensive than distilled liquors and yet spend less
than $120,000,000, as against the $500,000,000 above mentioned. It
should be noticed that while rum, gin, brandy, whisky, etc., contain
over 50 per cent. of alcohol, ales never reach nine per cent., and
lager beer seldom reaches six per cent. and is often below four.
An examination of these tables taken in connection with the other
facts mentioned should be sufficient to give a general idea of the
nature and extent of the claims to be made in favor of beer as a common
beverage. Others will come to light in the course of our discussion,
and particularly in the chapter entitled, “What Authorities Say,” in
which are embodied the conclusions of some of the most noted scientific
investigators of our time.
CHAPTER IX.
BEER BREWING A BENEFIT TO FARMERS.
Thus far we have been chiefly occupied with the sanitary and social
advantages that attend the general use of beer in a community, but
there is another phase of the question that is worth careful attention.
Barley and hops are the foundation of beer and we propose to show in
this chapter some of the benefits that attend their cultivation for
brewing purposes and which are by no means confined to the cash price
received from the brewer. They can be raised to good advantage when
there is no such home consumption, but the real possibilities of these
crops are only attained when there are breweries near at hand. How
this is true will be understood after an examination of the following
statistics.
The cultivation of hops is in itself a more important industry than is
generally supposed, but for the purpose of this chapter it is of so
much less consequence than that of barley that it may be dismissed in
very few words. A few years ago our own production was not sufficient
to supply the brewers, and in 1872 we paid in round numbers $785,525.00
to foreign growers. The next year the import was $1,310,627.00 and
in 1874 reached $1,303,686.00. Since that time the tide has turned
and each of the past four years has shown an export to a considerable
amount, the figures taken in the order of the years being as follows:
1875, $1,286,500.00; 1876, $1,348,521.00; 1877, $2,305,355.00; 1878,
$2,152,873.00. The yearly consumption in this country is about
30,000,000 pounds, which after having served their purpose in the
brewery, furnish an excellent manure, especially for potatoes.
According to the last report of the United States Commissioner of
Agriculture, there were in 1877, no less than 1,614,654 acres under
cultivation with barley, and the product was 34,441,400 bushels
at an average value of 70 cents a bushel, making a total value of
$24,028,644.00 for the crop. The average yield to the acre was 21.3
bushels, and the average value to the acre $14.91, as against $10.72
for hay, $9.54 for corn, $9.25 for oats, $8.87 for rye and $15.08 for
wheat. Only three crops, potatoes, tobacco and wheat yielded a higher
value to the acre, and only six, wheat, corn, potatoes, oats, hay and
cotton had a greater total value. Again, the northern latitudes produce
the best barley and accordingly we find that in the six Eastern States,
the average value to the bushel was a little over 78 cents. In these
states the number of acres under cultivation was only 51,065, the
product 986,900 bushels, the average value to the acre $15.11, being
more than that of any other crop except potatoes. Notwithstanding all
this, we do not even now raise enough for home consumption. The import
of barley in 1877 was no less than 10,285,957 bushels at a value of
$7,887,886.00 on which a duty of 20 cents per bushel was paid by the
consumer, in addition to charges for freight and commission, all of
which could and should have been saved to our people. Nearly eight
million dollars is too large a sum to neglect when it lies at our very
hand.
[Illustration: ISRAEL PUTNAM,
_The great American General, Brewer and Tavern Keeper at Brooklyn,
Conn._ (1718-1790.)
_See Page 27._]
We have said that high latitudes are favorable to barley. It is chiefly
grown in the northern tier of states and in Canada, and a state
like Maine for instance would find immense advantage in an enlarged
production of this crop even under existing conditions. But suppose the
restriction on brewing were removed, that instead of being crushed out
by local law it were encouraged and fostered. It is not easy to compute
the material assistance such a course would be to the farming community
and the state at large, and yet the direct gain would be small in
comparison with the incidental advantages. For the proper illustration
of this point we must ask the reader to follow and keep in mind two
separate series of facts which we are about to present. The first
statistical and relating to the “refuse” of brewing establishments, and
the second general.
The breweries of the United States use annually about 30,000,000
bushels of malt, which yields, according to A. Schwarz of New York,
2½ per cent. or 750,000 bushels of “sprouts.” Now in estimating the
comparative value of different kinds of fodder according to the albumen
contained it is usual to take hay as the basis of comparison. Air-dried
meadow hay contains 7 per cent. of albumen. “Sprouts” contain from 24
to 30 per cent., so that a hundred bushels of sprouts, weighing 1,200
pounds, are equal in value to 4,628 pounds of hay, and the annual
product of sprouts as above stated to 34,710,000 pounds of hay. This
same 30,000,000 bushels of malt yields at least 35,000,000 bushels of
“grains,” having a weight of 1,520,000,000 pounds, and from 4 to 5
per cent. of albumen. Taking 4½ per cent. as the average, 100 pounds
of grains have the same nutritive value as 64 pounds of hay and the
value of the product reaches that of 973,241,000 pounds of hay. It is
a proved fact that cattle fed on grains give better milk than when any
other fodder is used and this fact is specially appreciated in New York
and New Jersey, where the grains and sprouts are largely used with
most excellent results. These products must by no means be confounded
with the “slops” from distilleries, which is utterly different in
character—_as indeed every product of the still seems to be tainted
with some portion of the curse that has always clung to spirituous
liquors_.
The second and general consideration is this: The past agricultural
history of New England shows a succession of specialties, each running
its course until the advent of another which existing circumstances
made more profitable. The first was grain (except barley), then came
wool, and then potatoes, while the last and most promising is dairy
farming. It is yet in its infancy but it is already important. One
thing is sure, that farming on the old-fashioned plan has seen its day
in New England. The natural advantages of the West enable it to raise
and deliver many crops cheaper than they can be grown in the older part
of the country, and under the influence of this competition Eastern
farmers have grown poorer and poorer unless they have taken up a
specialty or possessed some unusual natural advantages. We submit that
the combination of dairy farming with the growth of barley will, even
under the existing laws, prove very remunerative. The facts already
adduced point directly to this conclusion. The figures show that barley
is a profitable crop and that northern New England is well adapted to
its growth. Moreover it thrives on a comparatively poor soil while most
of the other natural products that rank high in value involve a large
expense for manure, and in many cases a great deal of hand labor. Dairy
farms are known to pay well. What then will be the result of combining
the two industries as above indicated on terms favorable to both? But
this can only be successfully done by the establishment of breweries,
and sooner or later the people will understand all these facts and act
accordingly. _Remove the laws that now make brewing impossible, and a
new industry will spring up as if by magic_—we might well say three
new industries—for barley culture and dairies will grow to keep pace
with the demands and the grants of brewing. For it must be remembered
that brewing is not like some other forms of manufacture. What it takes
with one hand it gives with the other. It receives the farmer’s grain
and pays him a good price; it gives him valuable fodder and manure for
a sum that is small in proportion to the benefit conferred. It helps
put in motion the wheels of another separate business, the manufacture
of cheese and butter, and it is again the agricultural community who
profit by the development.
_Living in an age of progress we must recognize the fact and adapt
ourselves to it or we shall inevitably fall behind, and we do not
believe that the men of New England will long close their eyes to
the advantages offered by such a course as has been indicated. The
change must come, and sooner or later, a part of the change must be
the resolute and successful demand for a repeal of the laws that
choke industry. Maine men in especial have everything to gain. Their
business is stagnant, their population decreasing, poverty staring
them in the face and enforced idleness eating like a canker into their
very nature. They have it in their power to change all this, to become
rich, revive trade, make the state famous for progressive energy, and
banish the intemperance that now accompanies and aggravates all their
other ills and is accompanied by the other corrupting evils that, as
experience shows, always spring up in the shadow of a prohibitory law._
The matter well deserves more space than we can give, but we have
presented the leading facts and must leave them for the examination
and mature reflection of all who are interested. Great things have
been expected of beet-root culture in Maine and other states, and we
cannot close this chapter without a word in reference to this topic.
The Commissioner of Agriculture, in the prefatory remarks to his last
Report, says: “The effort to produce a sugar beet, and the belief
and expectation of many that the beet would be made to yield in this
country as in Germany and France, of good quality, in sufficient
abundance, and at a sufficiently low cost, to make it pay has not
been realized—although no pains and money have been spared to insure
success.” The difficulty is that the sugar beet will not thrive on poor
or exhausted soil, unless it is heavily manured. Such has been the
constant experience in those places where the experiment has received
most attention, _viz._, Chatsworth, Ill., Sauk county, Wis., and some
parts of the state of Maine.[20] New England is unfit for beet-root
culture, partly by nature and partly by the exhaustion of the soil,
while on the other hand it is as we have said eminently adapted to
barley. Even had the expectations of the more reasonable part of
the beet-growers of Maine been realized, the material advantages to
the people would not have compared with those to be attained by the
encouragement of breweries, the growth of barley and hops and the
establishment of dairies. All these things go together and stimulate
other branches of industry. There will be more demand for other crops,
particularly hay and oats, and for lumber for vats, barrels, tubs and
building purposes. A busy temperate people must thrive _and we have
shown what will make them busy and temperate_.
[20] The state of Maine is assisting the experiment with beet-root by
granting a premium of one cent a pound on all beet-root sugar produced
in the state, but even with this help the industry has failed to
establish itself to any considerable extent.
CHAPTER X.
PROHIBITORY LAWS AND THEIR EFFECTS.
We have now reached a point at which we may properly recur to a
topic already suggested and inquire a little more carefully into the
actual working of the prohibitory laws. On this head we shall confine
ourselves chiefly to the testimony of men who have made the matter a
thorough study, and that not at a distance, but in the very midst of
the operation of such laws, and as Maine is the state which led the
way in the prohibitory movement and has since followed that course
with most persistency, it is proper that it should occupy most of our
attention during the inquiry.
Not long ago a number of the most prominent men of the state, men of
different political parties, wholly above reproach, and especially
fitted by official position or private observation to form a just
opinion in the premises, became so well convinced of the evils of
the present system, and its detrimental effect on the people, as to
unite in an effort for its amendment. Their movement took form in the
presentation by Mr. Fox of Portland, a lawyer of high reputation and a
member of the Legislature, of the following proposed Act:
“_State of Maine, 1879._
“An Act in relation to Cider, Native Wines, Ale, Porter, Lager Beer
and Malt Liquors.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in
Legislature assembled, as follows:
“Cider, Native Wine, Ale, Porter, Lager Beer and other Malt Liquors,
when pure and unadulterated, shall not be considered intoxicating
liquors within the meaning of the laws of this State.”
The bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance and able arguments
in its favor were made by Gen. Gorham, L. Boynton, Hon. Nathan Webb
and C. G. Yeaton, all men highly respected by the people of the state,
of the strictest integrity, and with no inducement to make other than
an impartial statement. Three gentlemen who have successively held
the office of county attorney of Cumberland county for about fifteen
years past and who are all Republicans, have unanimously testified
against the present prohibition law. They are Gen. Chas. T. Matlock,
C. F. Libby, Esq., and Nathan Webb. Similar views are held by such men
as Gen. W. S. Tilton of Logan Springs, Judge Goddard, postmaster of
Portland, M. P. Frank of Portland, Speaker of the House, Dr. Edw. Dana
and many other influential citizens. No party, however, was willing to
go to the people on this issue and the bill failed to pass, although
there is good reason to hope that when the next attempt is made some
who have previously upheld the present law will have learned to take a
different view. Much new light is constantly thrown on the influence of
the present statute, and can hardly fail to produce an adequate effect.
A minority report of the committee was presented and contains so much
of interest and importance that we cannot do better than to reproduce
it in these pages. Its statements are those of men who understand the
subject of which they treat and are worth a careful reading.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TEMPERANCE, OF THE FIFTY-EIGHTH
LEGISLATURE OF MAINE, 1879.
“The Committee on Temperance have listened to the able and exhaustive
arguments presented on both sides of the matter in hearing, and the
minority of said committee respectfully present their views in dissent
from the report of the majority. The law regulating the sale of
intoxicating liquors, commonly known as the prohibitory liquor law has
had a trial of more than a quarter of a century. Its severity has no
parallel in the laws of any other civilized country. Although enforced
with all the power of the state, court records show that the number of
prosecutions and convictions is increasing, at great expense to the tax
payers. Country towns pay their share for the enforcement of this law
in cities without corresponding benefit to themselves. The cost of its
execution is a burden on an over-taxed people. A detailed statement
which is hereto annexed shows the cost for officers to enforce the law.”
The details are here omitted but “the total reaches the enormous amount
of $220,000. The records of the Insane Hospital show a gradual increase
of patients caused by excessive use of intoxicating liquors. At the
present time that institution has nearly double the number of inmates
from that cause alone, which it had when the present prohibitory
law was enacted. While the law, with singular inconsistency, does
not recognize pure and beneficial kinds of intoxicating liquors as
property when intended for sale by other than city or town agencies,
and makes no distinction between the sale of adulterated liquors and
pure liquors, it authorizes their indiscriminate sale in numerous city
and town agencies. Liquor-drinking is not done openly to so great an
extent but the consumption is as large. It is notorious that quantities
of strong liquors have for years been transported into the state from
the Provinces, and especially from Massachusetts, which has drained us
of millions of dollars which might have been kept at home under liberal
laws. Liquor runners from New York and Boston penetrate every nook and
corner of our state to rob our people and eat out their substance.
Liquors are also imported in bond, and under the protection of the
Federal Government they cannot be seized in bulk. They are consumed in
families and in club-rooms which have been organized in large towns
and cities, under that most dangerous guise of social drinking. The
liquor agencies authorized by law have vended in some years more than a
hundred thousand dollars worth of liquors for medicinal, mechanical and
manufacturing purposes only, as is supposed. We consider these liquor
agencies as leeches upon the people. The question is whether a law,
the severity of which is without example, having failed to accomplish
the ends for which it was designed, according to experience and the
testimony of officials serving under it, who with singular unanimity
give their verdict against it, ought to be so amended that cider,
native wines, ale, porter and particularly lager beer, shall not be
considered within the meaning of the statute.
“History shows that every nation has its peculiar stimulants in
stronger or milder forms. Men crave stimulant. It is an undeniable
fact, both in the light of history and experience, that in countries
like Germany, France, etc., whose climate is not unlike ours,
drunkenness is known scarcely more than the strong liquors which cause
it. Cheap light wines and nutritious malt beverages supersede strong
drink. Everybody uses them at his meals and as a common beverage. The
people of those countries are among the healthiest, happiest, most
prosperous and temperate on the face of the globe. We appeal to the
wisdom of this Legislature and the consideration of the people whether
it would not promote the cause of temperance and the material welfare
of our state to give the amendment proposed a fair trial. It would
tend to promote harmony by removing an irritating and festering sore
from our politics. Good citizens without distinctions of party view
with alarm the inroads that this law in its operation is working upon
our social and material interest, driving away business, depreciating
real estate, shackling enterprise, cheating labor, increasing taxes,
educating intolerance and hypocrisy, influencing elections and
encouraging bribery and perjury and the clandestine compounding, sale
and use of poisonous liquors.”
DARIUS H. INGRAHAM of Portland.
GORHAM L. BOYNTON of Bangor.
F. B. FARREL of Van Buren.
ARTHUR MOORE of Machiasport.
This is the statement of men whose characters stand so high as to give
great weight to their opinion and leave nothing to be objected to their
statement of fact.
Again, Governor Garcelon is not a man to make hasty or unfounded
statements in an important matter and he has been for many years
an eminent physician of large practice and a close observer of the
habits of the people. But read this summary of an address delivered
by him before the Maine temperance convention: “He called attention
to various kinds of intemperance, which have generally escaped the
notice of reformers in that state. He spoke of the use of tobacco as an
increasing evil, especially among the young, and said that in addition
to chewing and smoking, snuff-dipping was becoming prevalent, a fact of
which many are ignorant and which excites surprise. The use of opiates,
Governor Garcelon remarked, had increased to an alarming extent. Many
a man, he said, had appeared upon the stand advocating temperance,
who had in his pocket a bottle of laudanum or black drops, which pave
the way to an early grave. The ladies carry chloroform and ether to
moisten the handkerchief with which to allay nervous excitement. As a
practicing physician and observer of human nature, he placed all these
forms of intemperance in the same category with the intemperate use of
spirituous liquors, all of which demand correction. Is the change from
the intoxicating liquors to opium an improvement? Governor Garcelon
has, undoubtedly, done the people a timely service by directing
attention to this and other evils, and if followed up it will be found
that the ‘Maine Law’ has not been the grand instrument of reform which
it is claimed to be.”
At a convention held at Bangor, Me., July 1, 1879, a resolution
in favor of local option was presented by Mr. Charles F. Swett, a
considerable part of whose speech is here reproduced, as it deals in
facts of great importance to the present discussion:
“In supporting this measure, I wish to distinctly define my position.
I am a practical temperance man; a total abstainer. I have belonged,
and do now belong, to every temperance organization in the state
of Maine, except the Reform Club. I have had much experience in
endeavoring to ‘reclaim the fallen and save others from falling,’ and
I therefore claim to be as conversant with the practical workings of
our prohibitory law as any man in this hall, and I declare, from my
experience, that that law, so far as it contributes to lessening the
evils of intemperance, is a complete failure, and a costly one to the
people of this state. * * * In Cumberland county there are four deputy
sheriffs, whose business it is to enforce the liquor law. These men
get from $7,000 to $9,000 per year for their services. Of course they
never reform a drunkard, but they can afford to contribute $3,000 a
year towards the campaign fund—and they do—and the people furnish the
money. Every liquor-seller thrown into jail for sixty days pays the
high sheriff a profit of $1.50 per week. When there is an average of
say fifty of these cases his profits will be $4,000 per year, from this
source alone. The people furnish the money, and the sheriff ‘comes down
handsomely’ for the campaign fund. True, there are no men reformed, but
the party gets the ‘sinews of war.’ And so it is all over the state.
“The cost of the execution of the prohibitory law is a burden upon
our over-taxed people. The report of the temperance committee of our
last Legislature showed that although the ‘law was enforced with
all the power of the state,’ court records prove that the number of
prosecutions is annually increasing, at great expense to the tax
payers. From June 1, 1877, to June 1, 1878, the cost of enforcing
the prohibitory law, in Cumberland county alone, reached $28,000. In
the same ratio, applied to the population of the whole state, the
cost reaches the enormous sum of $220,000, annually. But we would not
complain of the expenditure even of this vast sum if the results were,
in any degree satisfactory. But they are not. The advocates of the
Maine law make bold claims, but their claims are not substantiated
by the facts. Outside of Maine, and even in the back towns of this
state, remote from the cities, people are given to understand that
liquor is not sold in Maine, and therefore there is less crime here
than formerly. Neal Dow says, ‘We have little crime here because we
have banished its cause.’ Let us look at the facts. In 1851, there
were 87 convicts in the state prison. We had then a population of
584,000, while to-day it is probably 625,000. Last year’s state prison
report shows the number of convicts to be 206, while 69 more were
serving in jail work-shops. So the number of convicts has increased,
_under the prohibitory law_, over threefold, while our population has
remained comparatively the same. Does that speak well for prohibition?
Now, take the city of Portland. In 1856, there were 650 arrests
for drunkenness, in a population of 27,000. In 1876, twenty years
later, with a population of about 30,000, there were 1800 arrests for
drunkenness, and in no year of the last eight has the list fallen
below 1,200. And this under a vigorous enforcement of the prohibitory
law. Does that speak well for prohibition? During last week, over 200
barrels of liquor were brought into Portland, by the various railroads
and steamboats, _for home consumption_. Does that speak well for
prohibition?
“The secret drinking in club-rooms in Portland is threefold that which
formerly took place at open bars, while the traffic outside has been
driven into worse and worse hands every year, until it has, with a
few exceptions, been taken away from respectable men, whose interest
it would be to conduct it with some show of decency, and given into
the undivided management and control of the low and criminal, so that
while ‘the law is enforced with all the power of the state,’ the upper
classes get drunk at the club-rooms, and the lower classes get drunk
at the shops in the slums. Does that speak well for prohibition? The
vilest liquors possible to make are manufactured for the market in this
state, and even our state liquor agent could not, or did not, _keep
pure_ liquors even for medicinal purposes.
“Private club-rooms have multiplied in Portland, under the operation of
the prohibitory law, (there being over 80 in that city at the present
time,) and our young men just starting out in life are exposed to all
the dangers of the drunkard’s life, and no law can stop them. In these
club-rooms, boys who would never go to saloons to get drunk, who would
never learn to gamble were it not for their club-room temptations,
who would, in short, grow up honest and respected citizens, are being
ruined every day. This evil ought to be remedied by prompt and decisive
action. Fathers who love their sons; mothers who pray for their boys;
sisters who mourn over their disgraced brothers; wives who weep over
the wreck of what were once good men and true husbands; citizens who
care for the good name and prosperity of their communities, ought to
labor to shut these accursed gates of hell! Let us commence the good
work by striving to repeal the prohibitory law, which is a positive
detriment to the cause of temperance, an incubus upon the mercantile
interests of Maine, and a curse to the young men of our cities.”
In Massachusetts we have very important testimony to the same effect, a
part of which is very ably and carefully summarized in an article which
we insert here, retaining for convenience a portion at the beginning
which might equally well be placed under a different heading:
“The state Board of Health of Massachusetts, in the Tenth Annual
Report, published in January, 1879, say, under the head of
‘Intemperance’: ‘A more severe public judgment of drunkenness, in
recent times, has undoubtedly tended to very much decrease its
prevalence; and it is generally believed that light German beer is
used more and more each year, at least in our state, to the exclusion
of stronger liquors—_a change which it is of course desirable to
hasten by legislation, so far as that can be done, either by removal
of restrictions on the sale of mild liquors, and heavily taxing the
stronger spirits, or by any other just and proper means_.’ This is the
reiterated public expression of men to whom the state of Massachusetts
has committed the general care for the health of her people. For the
former public utterance of this opinion the chairman of the Board, for
years past, has been most bitterly assailed by prohibitionists; but,
undaunted by these intemperate and abusive attacks, the state Board of
Health confirm the statement of their honest conviction by repeating
the same, and embodying it in an important public document.
“In harmony with this public expression of opinion by the state Board
of Health, appears the action of the Committee on License of the Board
of Aldermen of the city of Boston. In their report of September, 1878,
to the City Council, this committee say: ‘It may be objected that the
committee have been too liberal in their recommendations of the issue
of licenses, but their experience has convinced them that the “lunch
rooms,” established chiefly for the sale of lager beer and edible
refreshments, ought to be regarded as victualing saloons, even if
facilities are not maintained for regular meals, and no cooking is done
on the premises. The committee feel satisfied that the consumption of
lager beer, now so general, tends, in fact, to exclude from sale and
use more ardent spirits, and thereby diminishes crime and pauperism.
It is well known that in the old countries, where beer and light wines
are accessible, without restraint, at a small expense, and are freely
used by all classes of people, cases of intoxication are very rare. The
committee are confident that drunkenness, and consequently pauperism
and crime, will be diminished in this state, if no restrictions were
placed on the sale of lager beer, for it then could be provided at such
a low price as to effectually supersede the use of strong liquors.
They therefore submit for the consideration of the City Council the
following order:
“‘_Ordered_, That his Honor the Mayor be requested to petition the next
Legislature for such amendment of chapter 99 of the statutes of 1875 as
will allow the sale of cider and lager beer without any license being
required therefor.’
“It must be admitted, that in the state of Massachusetts, the liquor
question has been as fully discussed, and the various legal expedients
connected therewith have had as fair and full a trial as in any other
state in the Union. It may therefore be claimed, without presumption,
that to the results there attained, and the opinions there formed, when
coming from official and authentic sources, the careful consideration
of other state governments should be given. Acting from this view, we
draw the attention of the reader to a very instructive report of the
results of an investigation relative to drunkenness and liquor selling
under prohibition and license legislation contained in the Tenth Annual
Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, issued as
a public document in January, 1879. This investigation was undertaken
at the special request of Governor Rice, whose object was to place on
record a statement, as a basis for an intelligent consideration of the
question, of as reliable a character as could be secured by impartial
statistics. These statistics are drawn from official sources, and, as
far as the figures are concerned, are thoroughly reliable.
“The years 1874 and 1877 were selected for comparison, because 1874
represented the last full year under the operation of the prohibitory
law, and 1877 the last full year under the license law. The advantages
resulting from this selection of years, if any, are on the side of the
prohibitory law, because that law, in 1874, had been in operation for a
number of years, while the license law, in 1877, had only been in force
a year and a half.
“Four circulars were prepared and addressed by the chief of the state
Bureau of Statistics and Labor to town clerks, city clerks, chiefs of
police, to standing justices, clerks of district, municipal and police
courts, and trial justices. These circulars solicited information
regarding the sales of liquor, prosecutions therefor, and arrests and
convictions for drunkenness for the prohibitory year 1874 and the
license year 1877. The completeness of the investigation may be seen
from the following statement:
“Circular ‘A’ was sent to 325 Town Clerks; 322 answered.
“Circular ‘B’ was sent to 19 City Clerks; 19 answered.
“Circular ‘C’ was sent to 19 Chiefs of Police; 19 answered.
“Circular ‘D’ was sent to 132 Court and Trial Justices; 130 answered.
“This is a total of 490 returns of 495 circulars of inquiry sent out.
There can be no question that the investigation was exhaustive, for
the few towns which did not answer are unimportant places. From the
information thus obtained and tabulated in detail in the Report, the
following totals are derived:
ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 28,044
Under the license law, 1877, 20,657
CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 23,981
Under the license law, 1877, 17,862
NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE LIQUOR WAS ILLEGALLY SOLD.
Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 5,609
NUMBER OF PLACES LICENSED TO SELL LIQUOR.
Under the license law, 1877, 5,273
JUDGMENTS ON COMPLAINTS FOR ILLEGAL SALES.
Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 3,644
Under the license law, 1877, 1,693
“It will thus be seen that the number of arrests for drunkenness under
the operation of the license law, during the year 1877, as compared to
the prohibitory year 1874, shows a decrease of fully twenty-five per
cent. In the number of convictions for drunkenness the difference in
favor of the license year is at the same rate. The number of places
where liquor was _illegally_ sold under the prohibitory law of 1874,
was larger by 336 than the number of places _licensed_ in 1877. It
is evident from these returns that the prohibitory law has failed to
prohibit, or even to regulate, the sale of liquor, while it is equally
apparent that the license law, as a legislative measure, not only
regulates the sale of liquor, but decreases drunkenness.
“A law, to be effective, must have the support of the people; the
prohibitory law will never be thus supported, as common sense will
teach that it is neither just nor judicious, to make somebody else than
the drunkard himself responsible for his failing; and is not just this
the questionable theory upon which prohibition is based?
“The prohibitionists condemn the use of alcoholic beverages of every
kind, as the prolific source of sin and vice. Nothing less than total
abstinence finds favor with them. To them, the terms use and abuse
have no distinctive meaning, and their curse falls upon brewery and
distillery alike. It must be admitted that as long as alcoholic
stimulants are used, intemperance will exist, and that the evil of
drunkenness will only disappear with their total suppression. In view
of the actual state of social habits, and the position which alcoholic
beverages hold in civilized life, as now constituted, no sane person
will believe such a total suppression possible. There are no means by
which a habit, transmitted from generation to generation, and forming
so important an element in the development of the civilization of the
human race, can be uprooted. Alcoholic stimulants once invented are
never again abandoned, and seem to be destined to co-exist with man.
The deplorable vice of drunkenness has always accompanied their use,
and all attempts of rulers and philanthropists, the severest penalties
and the sincerest compassion, have alike failed to suppress the evil.
But it does not follow that, because the temptation of excessive use is
too strong for some to be resisted, the great mass of people, who can
and do use these beverages in moderation, should be made responsible
for the weakness of the few. Nor does it follow that the intensity of
the temptation is to be regarded as an excuse for the drunkard. Excess
in the gratification of a desire, however natural, to the injury of
others, is to be condemned morally and legally. Many actions of man,
which the moral and legal code of society brands as a crime, and
punishes as such, are the result of an inordinate gratification of
instinctive desires implanted by nature, upon the proper indulgence of
which the very propagation and the happiness of the human race depends,
as for example, the instinct of self-preservation, of procreation and
of acquisition. The more civilization advances, the more moral and
intellectual discernment governs natural impulse, the less excess
in the use of alcoholic stimulants the world will see. The vice of
intemperance prevails to a far greater extent among the ignorant and
uneducated than among the cultured classes of society. The spread
of culture and education will do far more for temperance than the
indiscriminate prohibition of the sale of alcoholic stimulants and
the signing of pledges; it will divest the indulgence of the social
cup of vulgarity, and will punish immoderation by social ostracism;
by giving to the pleasure of exhilaration an ideal character, it
will make the vine and the hop the emblems of harmless enjoyment.
A clearer perception thus establishes a standard of ethics, which
recognizes a proper gratification of the innate craving for enjoyment
and exhilaration, as an essential to human happiness, but draws the
line between what is permissible and what is not, between the becoming
and the unbecoming. The craving for improvement of condition and for
enjoyment is strongly developed in man—happily for him, for it is the
very spur that urges him on to the physical improvement which is the
necessary concomitant of mental advance. The love for exhilarating
stimulants is but one phase of this craving. As such it is entitled
to and has found recognition in our social laws, and the temperate
use of alcoholic beverages is sanctioned by a practice as wide-spread
as civilization itself, and by all classes, whatever their station or
condition in life. Contravening legal statutes will always be found
either wholly inoperative, or to fall far short of the intended effect.
Whenever and wherever the temporary enforcement of a law prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of such beverages has taken place, the cure,
as far as the suppression of stimulants is concerned, has generally
proved worse than the disease.”
The following particulars, taken from the report under the title of
“Nativity of Prisoners,” given by the Chief of the Police of Boston,
become very interesting when considered in reference to the usual drink
of the classes mentioned. The table shows first the number in Boston
of Irish and Germans, the number of prisoners of each nation and the
percentage of prisoners to the whole population:
---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------
| | | PERCENTAGE OF
| POPULATION. | NO. OF |PRISONERS TO THE
| | PRISONERS. | POPULATION.
---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------
Irish | 56,900 | 14,673 | 25.78
German | 5,606 | 364 | 6.49
---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------
Similar general results are found more or less marked wherever such
laws are in force. Druggists tell us that as a rule the consumption
of opium in various forms from paregoric to laudanum has increased,
bitters are more extensively used and in some places Scotch snuff for
“dipping” has come into demand. The amount of opium annually imported
is greater than that received by China a hundred years ago, and there
is reason to suppose that many who are called reformed drunkards have
adopted opium in some form and thus given themselves to a new bondage
no whit better than the old. Notice that the increase in the sale
of opium keeps pace in a very fair measure with the enforcement of
prohibitory laws. One dealer in drugs in Hartford, Conn., recently
advertised for sale five thousand pounds of opium, certainly a good
dose for the land of steady habits. In the state just mentioned both
prohibition and “local option” laws have been tried and neither can
be considered a success. Under the present “local option” many towns
wholly forbid the sale of spirituous and malt liquors, and this fact
has given great prominence to suits arising out of the sale of what is
called Schenck beer, which is substantially lager beer. The courts at
last decided that this article is not intoxicating within the meaning
of the act, and though the decision as to intoxicating quality is just,
the fact that this beer is allowed while lager beer under its own name
is forbidden shows how great a part prejudice instead of reason has
played in the contest. “Peripatetic gin mills” are increasing in about
the same ratio as “temperance societies” and “temperance detectives.”
Those who pass by the name of temperance reformers seem in many cases
to lose the sense of human charity and brotherly kindness, and little
else can be expected when we remember how often they are the slaves
of this single idea and how in all ages of the world bigotry has been
attended by cruelty. Before giving one striking instance of cruelty
which it is to be hoped has since been sincerely regretted by all
concerned, we must reiterate that any law which every one knows to be
constantly violated brings law into disrespect and demoralizes the
community so far forth. The case to which reference was just made was
mentioned in the New York _World_, and although other matters are added
the whole is of sufficient interest to bear reproduction. The article
is as follows:
“Some time last September an old lady by the name of Stack who kept a
farm at Northfield, Vt., sold two glasses of cider to a man by the name
of Timothy Hogan, who informed against her and secured her conviction
and a fine of $20 and expenses. In consideration of her age, sickness
and poverty, she was allowed a short time to pay her fine, but not
being prepared with the cash in January, she was arrested by Deputy
Sheriff Avery, and, notwithstanding the severity of the weather,
hauled off to prison in an open sleigh to Montpelier insufficiently
clad. While in confinement sickness and poor treatment combined caused
a rapid decline, until her niece, a domestic in a hotel, borrowed
sufficient money to pay her fine and effect her release. Her death
followed shortly afterward, caused, no doubt, by the treatment she
had received. This at the hand and in the cause of philanthropic
reformers is bad enough, but worse remains. Here is a temperance man’s
description of the system by which these reformers are guided, and
which one of our conscientious judges in Connecticut not long since
truly denounced as infamous. The state referred to is the state of
the ‘Green Mountain Boys,’ and noble Ethan Allen—Vermont. The manner
of prosecuting liquor cases is by what is known as the ‘spy system.’
Every informer who can secure the conviction of any person receives a
portion of the fine imposed. A respectable justice of the municipal
court in one of the most important towns in the state is authority for
the statement that there are certain justices of the peace who make
a special arrangement with these informers and come in for a share
of the profits, so that outside of the merits of the case conviction
is a foregone conclusion every time. The prohibitory law in force in
this state makes it a crime for a man to sell even a glass of cider.
In the past few weeks the _World_ correspondent has visited Rutland,
Burlington, St. Albans, Montpelier and other towns in the state, and
found in every place that at the hotels and elsewhere liquor was sold
and no questions asked. In this, as in every other state, where a
similar law has been in force, people with money and influence can
freely engage in the traffic with none to molest or make them afraid.
The class of spies or informers who engage in the work of prosecuting
liquor cases are the lowest people in the community. They are despised
by everybody except fanatical temperance reformers, who employ and
encourage them. A prominent citizen, who has held high office in the
state and is one of the substantial business men, said the other day:
‘The result of the prohibitory law has been to honey-comb the social
community with hypocrisy and immorality. I have closely investigated
the course of events since this “temperance wave” has swept the state,
and while drunkenness is not on the decrease other forms of immorality
are certainly on the increase. I would not permit my daughter, or any
respectable young lady over whom I might have any influence, to even
attend the evening meetings of these temperance societies, as I think
it has been conclusively proved that they promote immorality.’ Such a
statement coming from an influential and respected citizen, who himself
practices and inculcates temperance principles, shows the tendency of
the prohibitory movement in this state.”
It would be an easy matter to collect volumes of evidence on this
question of the real effect of prohibitory laws, all going to show
that they do not prevent intemperance, that they do lead to the use of
other stimulants, that they undermine the character of the community,
and that, from whatever point of view regarded, they must be considered
harmful to the individual and to the state. Enough, however, for our
present purpose and for the space at command has been already said.
Those best informed will be most ready to say that the presentation
above given does not overstate, but rather falls short of displaying
the corruption that creeps in where a prohibitory law is in force.
CHAPTER XI.
WHAT AUTHORITIES SAY.
What shall we do to prevent the evils of a too free use of intoxicating
drinks, and to make our people truly temperate?
This question was ably discussed in the State Board of Health of
Massachusetts some years ago, and Dr. Bowditch, the chairman of the
board, expressed himself at that time as follows: “I am confident that
our people could be gradually led to a higher temperance by appeals to
common sense while deprecating the evils of intemperance, by observing
that the use of some liquors is deleterious, while the temperate use of
others does little or no harm. I deem a love of stimulants as much a
human instinct as any other of the so-called human instincts. And the
proposition of total abstinence from stimulants because intoxication
prevails widely in the community, seems to me as preposterous as
it would be to advise universal celibacy because of the existence
of gross evils in connection with those instincts that lead to the
divine institution of marriage. By classifying all liquors as equally
injurious, and by endeavoring to further that idea in the community,
are we not doing a real injury to the country by preventing a free
use of lager beer instead of ardent spirits to which our people are
so addicted? In the sincere belief, gentlemen, that this analysis of
our correspondence will, eventually at least, tend to help onward the
most excellent cause of temperance everywhere, and in the hope that
none will be offended at the expression at times, of my own individual
opinion, which in the course of the discussion I have deemed it my
right and duty to give, I remain
Your colleague and friend,
HENRY J. BOWDITCH,
_Chairman of the State Board of Health of Massachusetts._”
In his annual report to the State Board of Health, Dr. Bowditch said,
speaking of the question of temperance in connection with the use of
light wines and beer, “I fully agree with all that has been said of the
value of light wines as an aid to temperance, but I sincerely believe
that Germans are destined to be really the greatest benefactors of this
country by bringing to us—if we choose to accept the boon—their beer.
Lager beer contains less alcohol than any of the native or foreign
grape wines. This fact with the other fact that the Germans have not
the pernicious habits of our people, would if we chose to adopt their
customs tend to diminish intemperance in this country. From the study I
have made, lager beer can be used freely without any apparent injury to
the individual, or without intoxication, and would be really a promoter
of the temperance cause, and if we could so manage as to furnish the
people with lager beer and dispense with distilled or alcoholic liquors
entirely, the community would be immensely benefited.” And on page 301
in the same report, the Doctor properly said, “Whisky-drinkers are seen
staggering through the streets or lying insensible in some corner,
wherever this beverage is used. But among the light wine tipplers and
beer-drinkers, even when drinking freely, drunkards are very seldom
seen.”
We have previously shown that in many cases the introduction of beer
has added to the welfare of society, and that its use is perfectly
consistent with habits of sobriety and temperance. From this we
drew the inference that the production should be encouraged and its
increase hailed as a sure pledge of improvement in the matters of
drunkenness, disorder and crime. The same conclusion was reached by
Dr. Bowditch as the result of correspondence conducted with a view to
ascertaining fully the actual state of the case at home and abroad. He
caused a series of inquiries to be carefully prepared and forwarded
to thirty-three resident American ambassadors and to one hundred and
thirty-two consuls, also to many other men in private or official
positions, whose statements and opinions would be entitled to respect.
When the answers were received the unanimity of the opinions expressed
was almost startling. _All_ are in favor of beer as a light, wholesome
beverage, superior even to the light wines. Following are given a few
extracts from the great mass of answers received:
A physician in Massachusetts writes, “I should make a distinction
between the use of intoxicating liquors and the lighter drinks. What
a blessing it would be for the community if we could furnish the
people with the best of lager beer and dispense with distilled liquors
entirely.”
Another physician, also resident in Massachusetts, says, “I have had
a very large practice among the Germans for twenty years, and my
observation has been that they are remarkably free from consumption and
chronic diseases. I have attributed it to their free use of lager beer,
and do conscientiously believe that the moderate use of this beverage
is beneficial.”
A letter from the consulate general of the United States at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, reads thus: “Twenty years ago the state of
affairs in reference to temperance was different. By the improvement
in making beer and the selling of it to the people at large, at low
prices, things have changed wonderfully. Drunkards have disappeared. A
great deal less of cider and wine is consumed. Everybody now generally
drinks beer. Intoxication has decreased. It cannot be said that the
general health of the people suffers in this part of Germany. In the
city of Frankfort, with a population of over one hundred thousand, and
an average annual mortality of fifteen hundred, hardly five persons
on an average have died of delirium tremens, which all the eminent,
physicians here attribute to the free use of lager beer.”
Mr. John Jay of the United States Legation at Vienna says: “I am
advised by those in whose judgment I have full confidence, that the
chief drinks in Austria are wine but particularly beer, the latter
of which is drunk by all classes of society at home and at places of
amusement, and that but comparatively a small amount of spirituous
liquors is consumed except in Galicia. Touching the relative amount of
intoxication in the country where I am residing, and that seen all over
the United States, I do say that I have seen more intoxicated persons
in the streets of New York in one day than I have chanced to see in
Vienna during the past year.”
Baron Liebig, the eminent chemist, makes the following statements:
“Beer unites in its composition a number of constituents whose action
is such as to more or less completely neutralize the alcohol whose
tendency is to exalt the function of the brain and nervous system.”
“Fermented juices, in general, differ from spirits in containing
alkalies, organic acids and certain other substances.”
“Pure lager beer when taken with lean flesh and little bread yields a
diet approaching to milk, and with fat meat, approaching to rice or
potatoes.” And in another place, “In beer-drinking countries, it is the
universal medicine for the healthy as well as for the sick, and it is
milk to the aged.”
Dr. Schlaeger of Vienna, also a distinguished chemist, says:
“It is my opinion, based on numerous cases that have come under my
professional observation, that delirium tremens and other maladies
to which inebriates are subject are caused chiefly by the use of
_distilled liquors_. Therefore the manufacture and sale of beer should
be encouraged. It should be free from taxation in order that it may be
placed within the reach of all at a low price and thoroughly take the
place of ardent spirits.”
The editor of the Chicago _Tribune_, writing from Germany, says:
“Drunkenness is so rare and infrequent that it may be said not to
exist. I have traveled thousands of miles through Germany, in various
directions, visiting nearly all the chief cities, and have made
diligent inquiry of American consuls and other well-informed persons,
and received but one answer everywhere, _viz._, no drunkenness among
the Germans; public sentiment would not tolerate it; the habits of the
country are all against it. And what is the reason of this freedom from
inebriation? It is the total absence of whisky and the substitution of
lager beer.”
[Illustration: WILLIAM PENN’S HOUSE AND BREWERY IN PENNSBURY, BUCKS
COUNTY, PA. (See page 26.)]
Mr. Y. G. Hurd wrote to Mr. Bowditch in reference to the beer question
and after referring to the records of the Essex police court and
alluding to intemperance caused by ardent spirits, continued as
follows: “Of all our commitments 60 per cent. are directly traceable
to drunkenness. Is the enforcement of a prohibitory or any other law
alone to rid us of the monster? Were there only the pecuniary interest
of the liquor traffic to meet, powerful as it is, the result would not,
be doubtful. But there are climatic influences, the universal desire
for stimulants, the education of our civilization for some centuries,
social customs and hereditary tendencies, all tending in a greater or
less degree to perpetuate the evil. * * * * * A visit to Chicago and my
observation there of the habits of the German population, first brought
to my mind doubts that total abstinence will ever be an accomplished
fact. I visited the beer gardens on Sunday to see how the Germans spend
the day. There was a band of music, a dance floor, rude seats and
tables like our New England picnics, in a beautiful grove, and lager
in such quantities as I had never conceived. Everybody, old and young,
drank and seemed to continue to drink during the afternoon. But lager
was the only beverage. No liquors, no drunkenness and no fights or
disorderly conduct. The young men and maidens were merry and danced,
the elder drank and talked with the gravity and dignity becoming to
respectable German citizens; the children sipped their glass of lager
and gamboled on the grass, and all went home apparently sober, to
resume without doubt, their usual avocations on the morrow. There were
probably two thousand persons taking their weekly recreation, and this
was only one of half a dozen similar places about the suburbs of the
city. Now if this had been an American or Irish congregation, and the
beverage the usual vile concoctions called whisky, gin and brandy,
would not the closing scenes of the afternoon have been very different?
Broken heads, bloody noses, and the wayside strewn with the wrecks
of humanity in beastly intoxication. I thought if we could be rid of
the grosser liquors—banish them, put them in the pale of dangerous
drugs to be only dispensed by the physician like other poisons, and
substitute the lager of the Germans and the light wines of France and
_our own country_—should we not be doing our best to exterminate the
curse of drunkenness? I expect we shall yet come to this conclusion.
The difficulty is that with the tastes of our people, lager and wines
will be, indeed, now are, a cover for the sale of the grosser liquors,
and worse than all, these liquors are without exception, adulterated
or poisonous. I have written at your request this somewhat candid
statement of my present views as briefly as possible.”
A physician who has under his professional charge, a large institution
for the maintenance of aged persons, informs us that the demand for
stimulus in the form of tea is a matter of constant observation, and
he moreover gives it as his opinion that from twenty to twenty-five
per cent. of the whole number are _tea sots_, drinking tea regularly
from four to six times a day and as much oftener as they can procure
it. They show the effect of this over-stimulation by increased mental
irritability, muscular tremors and a greater or less degree of
sleeplessness. Another fact to the same purport has been communicated
to us by a friend. A domestic in the family sometimes appeared
intoxicated and as it was certain she could not get at any of the
liquors generally considered intoxicating, the circumstance excited no
little surprise and curiosity. At last the problem was solved by the
discovery that she drank large quantities of the strongest tea. This it
will be seen is in exact conformity with the opinion of Mr. Gladstone
as previously quoted, and more or less marked cases of the same nature
have doubtless been observed by many of our readers.
A. Schwarz, Esq., of New York, the editor of “Der Americanische
Bierbrauer,” a man known in both hemispheres, as an able writer and
chemical student, who by his life-long study in fermented beverages
has won for himself the thanks of every brewer, writes thus: “Among
all drinks, as well those which nature furnishes in abundance as those
which are produced by human skill, lager beer especially commends
itself by its properties as an excellent beverage.
“Milk contains nutritious substances (protein) and various salts.
“Wine contains alcohol and small quantities of salts.
“Mineral waters, which render such valuable service to the diseased
human organism, contain carbonic acid and salt.
“Coffee and tea contain volatile aromatic oils and alkaloids.
“Strong spirituous liquors, as whisky, brandy, rum, arrack and gin,
contain only more or less alcohol, with some etherial oils.
“The various popular so-called temperance drinks are distinguished only
by their watery contents, which are flavored with sugar and extracts of
plants and herbs to make them taste less insipid.
“Beer contains protein, alcohol, salts and carbonic acid gas, and hence
possesses nutritious, stimulating and refreshing properties.
“It is not our intention to write a eulogy of beer. We will only state
in its favor what cannot be denied by any man, be he a physician or a
mechanic, a philosopher or a manufacturer, a chemist or an engineer, a
wine-drinker or a temperance man.
“We denote as extracts of beer those solid substances which are not,
through the fermentation of the wort, transformed into volatile bodies,
and therefore remain as a sediment after the evaporation of the beer.
This extract consists of malt sugar obtained by the mashing process, of
albumen contained in the malt and now dissolved, and of certain salts,
especially phosphoric salt, which were originally contained in the
barley, and have not been lost during the process of brewing.
“The amount of the extract of beer mainly depends on the original
concentration of the wort and on that state of fermentation in which
the beer is consumed; it varies from three to eight per cent.
“By virtue of its protein and its salts, it has a very nutritious
effect upon the human organism, and though it does so in a less degree
than meat or bread, yet on account of the form of solution in which
it appears in the beer, it is easier assimilated, _i. e._, it easily
enters the organism and plays a prominent part in the formation of
milk, muscle, flesh and bones,—and the quantity of alcohol contained in
beer is so small and so much diluted with water, that it can produce
intoxication only if consumed in a very great quantity, _i. e._, by an
immoderate use.”
An international congress has just been held in Paris on “Alcoholism,”
and the Belgian delegate, Dr. Barella, constituted himself the
champion of beer. He contended that the consumption of spirits should
be discountenanced, because these beverages are harmful, and that
the consumption of beer should be encouraged, because it is a sound,
wholesome and harmless drink. He pointed out that in countries where
the wines are good, and the beers agreeable and nutritive, much less
spirits are consumed, and _vice versa_.
Following is a summary of the points made in the report of Dr. Bowditch
previously quoted. They will be found useful and interesting, and
the whole document deserves the highest praise for thoroughness of
investigation, caution of statement and fairness of spirit.
1st. Stimulants are used everywhere, and at times abused, by savage and
by civilized men. Consequently intoxication occurs all over the globe.
2nd. This love of stimulants is one of the strongest instincts. It
cannot be annihilated, but may be regulated by reason, by conscience,
by education, or by law when it encroaches on the rights of others.
3rd. Climatic law governs it, the tendency to indulge to intoxication
being not only greater as we go from the heat of the equator towards
the north, but the character of that intoxication becoming more violent.
4th. Owing to this cosmic law intemperance is very rare near the
equator. It is there a social crime and a disgrace of the deepest dye.
Licentiousness and gambling are small offenses compared with it. To
call a man a drunkard is the highest of insults. On the contrary at the
north of 50° it is very frequent, is less of a disgrace and is by no
means a social crime.
5th. Intemperance causes little or no crime toward the equator. It is
an almost constant cause of crime either directly or indirectly at the
north above 50°.
6th. Intemperance is modified by race as shown in the different
tendencies to intoxication of different people.
7th. Races are modified physically and morally by the kind of liquor
they use as proved by examination of the returns from Austria and
Switzerland.
8th. Beer, native light grape wines and ardent spirits should not
be classed together, for they produce very different effects on the
individual and upon the race.
9th. German beer and ale can be used even freely without any very
apparent injury to the individual, or without causing intoxication.
They contain very small percentages of alcohol (4 or 4.5 to 6.50 per
cent.). Light grape wines, unfortified by an extra amount of alcohol,
can be drunk less freely but without apparent injury to the race, and
with exhilaration rather than drunkenness. Some writers think they do
no harm but a real good if used moderately. They never produce the
violent crazy drunkenness, so noticeable from the use of the ardent
spirits of the north. Ardent spirits, on the contrary, unless used very
moderately, and with great temperance, and with the determination to
omit them as soon as the occasion has passed for their use, are almost
always injurious, if continued even moderately for any length of time,
for they gradually encroach on the vital powers. If used immoderately
they cause a beastly narcotism which makes the victim regardless of all
the amenities and even the decencies of life, or perhaps they render
him furiously crazy, so that he may murder his best friend.
10th. Races may be educated to evil by bad laws, or by the introduction
of bad habits. France and a small part of Switzerland are beginning to
suffer from the introduction of absinthe and other spirituous liquors.
Especially is this noticeable since the late Franco-German war.
11th. A race, when it emigrates, carries its habits with it. For a time
at least, those habits may override all climatic law.
12th. England has thus overshadowed our whole country with its love
of strong drinks, and with its habits of intoxication, as it has more
recently covered Ceylon, parts of the East and Australia.
13th. This influence on our own country is greater now than it would
have been if our forefathers, the early settlers, had cultivated the
vine, which would have been practicable, as seen by the examples of
Ohio and California, and from the fact that the whole of the United
States lies in the region of the earth’s surface suited to the grape
culture.
14th. If these early settlers had done this our nation would probably
have been more temperate, and a vast industry like that of France, of
Spain and of Italy and Germany, in light native wines, would long ago
have sprung up.
15th. The example set by California and Ohio[21] should be followed by
the whole country, where the vine can be grown. As a temperance measure
it behooves every good citizen to promote that most desirable object.
We should also allow the light, unfortified wines of Europe to be
introduced free of duty instead of the large one now imposed. Instead
of refusing the German lager beer, we should seek to have it introduced
into the present “grog shops” and thus substitute a comparatively
innoxious article for those potent liquors, which now bring disaster
and death into so many families.
[21] Ohio has already made very great progress in this direction, and
its wines are lighter than those of California. [Author.]
16th. The moral sense of the community should be aroused to the
enormity of the evils flowing from keeping an open bar for the sale of
ardent spirits, while those for the sale of light wines and of lager
beer or ale should not be opposed, except for the sale to habitual
drunkards after due notice from friends. Sellers violating such law
might be compelled to support for a time the family of their victim.
17th. The horrid nature of drunkenness should be impressed by every
means in our power upon the moral sense of the people. The habitual
drunkard should be punished, or if he be a _dipsomaniac_, he should be
placed in an inebriate asylum for medical and moral treatment, until he
has gained sufficient self-respect to enable him to overcome his love
of drink.
We give next an extract from an article written by Dr. Willard Parker,
which article was printed March 20th, 1879, in the _Religious Herald_,
a temperance paper published at Hartford, Conn. Dr. Parker says:
“We have never had a single case of an inebriate in the asylum at
Binghamton, (N. Y.,) who came here from using fermented beverages, he
may have begun with them and gone on to other and stronger liquors,
but the mere fermented beverages did not make an inebriate of him;
* * * and while men use simply fermented liquors with no more alcohol
than comes from their fermentation, drunkenness is but little known.”
He says also that fermentation is a process of nature which will
continue to exist as long as there is sugar and starch. Fermentation
is the work of omnipotence, not the work of man, it grows out of the
very constitution of things and is as truly a divine process as growth
itself.
Professor Mulder of Amsterdam remarks in the preface to his “Chemistry
of Beer,” page IV., “I dare say without exaggeration that we find
united in beer all the wholesome substances that are met separately
in the various carbonic acid mineral waters, in wine and in bread,”
and in reference to the alcoholic property of beer he says, page 461:
“Many people are prejudicially influenced by the frequent misuse of
alcoholic beverages and kept from reasoning honestly and truly as to
their salubrious effects in a diluted form such as we find in beer. If
we consider the beneficial effects of good beer on the system we cannot
help attributing a share in the result to the alcoholic element, even
if it be held that alcohol has in itself no nutritive power.” The same
opinion is held by Prof. Pittenkofer, the renowned and well-deserving
chemist and hygienist, on the strength of numerous observations and
results of minute examination.
Professor Stahlschmied formerly at Berlin and at present at the royal
polytechnic school at Aix-la-Chapelle, says in his work “Chemistry
in reference to Fermentation,” page 255: “Up to the present time,
experiments on the nourishing properties of beer have not been
sufficiently numerous to furnish definite conclusions. It is not so
much the small amount of organic extract that is to be considered as
the ashes and phosphates which are here provided in a form easy of
assimilation. In this respect beer is next to milk and furnishes an
aliment that is directly bone producing.” It is well known that beer
is very commonly taken by nursing women on account of its nourishing
and milk-producing qualities and the fact furnishes evidence from
experience to the same purport as the technical statement just quoted.
The report of the Department of Agriculture at Washington as far back
as the year 1866 speaks as follows: “The intemperate use of beer is
like the intemperate use of anything detrimental to health, but a
moderate use of pure beer will aid digestion, quicken the powers of
life, and give elasticity to the body and mind and will not produce
any of the terrible results named by fanatics and ignorant people. In
certain forms of dyspepsia it is a valuable assistant to other remedies
and in some cases of debility requiring a mild tonic and gentle
stimulant beer has been found of the greatest benefit.”
Touching the nutritious properties of beer as compared with the grain
from which it is made Professor Mulder says: “The food value of beer as
compared with grain is as one to fourteen, no account being made of the
food value of the alcohol contained in beer. The albumen value of beer
as compared with grain is as one to six, the fat as one to seventy and
the chemical salts as one to twenty-five. On the whole, the latest and
most trustworthy results of scientific investigation go to show that a
well brewed beer, properly compounded with hops and well matured, is to
be considered a beverage which has a most beneficial influence on the
transmutation of substances in the human body; if moderately taken.”
Sir Henry Labouchere, editor of “Truth” and formerly member of
Parliament for Windsor and Middlesex, an accomplished linguist, and
fitted both as an original thinker and by experience in the diplomatic
_corps_ at most of the capitals of Europe, to form a just opinion, says
that experience shows that beer is a most wholesome beverage, that when
pure it is not intoxicating and can be drunk freely, that its use adds
to the health and strength of man, that intoxication hardly exists
where it is the national beverage and that its introduction in all
parts of the world would be a blessing to mankind.
Professors Ure and Huxley, Dr. Harvey, Dr. Abercrombie and Bayard
Taylor, the celebrated traveler and recent ambassador at the court at
Berlin, as also our great statesman and historian George Bancroft,
all came, after careful study and personal observation, to the same
conclusion, that beer is not only healthy, refreshing and enlivening
as a beverage, but also an excellent means of rooting out the love of
strong drink and securing genuine temperance.
Dr. A. Baer, member of the Royal Sanitary Council, and chief physician
at the prisons of Berlin and Ploetzensee near Berlin has, within
a few months, published a valuable work on alcoholism. He says,
“Beer is of all drinks best adapted for a stimulating beverage of
general consumption. It combines with the refreshing, animating and
thirst-quenching elements, distinct nutritive qualities, mainly due
to the abundant presence of certain salts, and thus becomes one of
the very best substitutes for extract of meat. The greater number of
characteristic principles of the one are found in the other, but the
decided nervous animation experienced after drinking beer is chiefly
due to the large portion of phosphate of potassa, which _Mitcherlich_
says forms 20 parts in 100 of beer ashes, and which, according to
Ranke, constitutes the principal active ingredient in meat broth. To
the presence of this salt, beer owes its strengthening influence during
convalescence and in cases of general debility, and its marked tendency
to produce corpulency, as shown in beer-drinkers. In addition to this
the bitter principle of the hops has a tonic power of marked value in
assisting digestion while the modicum of alcohol has a stimulating and
animating effect on the brain. On the whole, beer as a beverage cannot
be excelled, as it possesses a number of qualities which jointly have a
most salutary effect upon the human organism.”
In a report presented a short time ago to the Industrial Society of
Mulhouse the well-known Dr. Schoellamer thus speaks of beer:
“Beer is one of the best drinks that we can recommend, its consumption
being most wholesome. Good beer ought to be regarded as an excellent
drink, capable in itself of replacing all other fermented drinks. Thus
its moderate consumption must be strongly recommended. If its price is
high a great obstacle is placed in the way of a natural consumption.
“Beer contains from two to eight per cent. of alcohol, a dose of
carbonic acid equal to three or four times its volume; when it is
exposed to the air it loses all its gas. It contains besides azote and
phosphates; for example, a liter of good beer, made exclusively with
hops and barley, contains 0.80 gr. of azote, which corresponds to 5.26
grains of albuminoid matters. There are again from 0.60 gr. to 0.80 gr.
of phosphoric acid, that is as much as in 530 grammes of meat or 220
grammes of bread. The solid extract of beer contains salts favorable to
nutrition, etc. It is on these accounts that beer may be considered a
beverage of the first order.
“It slacks thirst admirably, and as it contains a great deal of water
it is perhaps the best of all for that purpose. As an alcoholic drink
it is superior to all spirituous liquors. It is the most tonic, the
most operative, and the most nourishing. Complete drunkenness is almost
impossible with ordinary beer, whatever quantity may be consumed; what
is known as “alcoholism” is not produced by it. In fact beer exercises
on the human economy a tonic, nutritive, diuretic, and slightly
stupefying action, the last effect being due to the essential oil
contained in the hops, but large quantities must be absorbed before
this effect can be produced.”
Professor W. Nasse, president of the Society of Medical Officers of
Insane Asylums in Germany, presented for consideration at their annual
meeting held at Hamburg, Sept. 17, 1876, the following question: “How
can we specially assist in preventing the injury which results from
the use of alcoholic liquors?” It was decided that the only means was
in promoting the use of good mild beer. The same opinion has been
expressed by Dr. Selman in an address delivered at Dusseldorf, and also
by Dr. Roller of Illenau, a meritorious specialist in mental diseases,
and by Professors Griesinger of Zurich and Schreiber-Berzelius of
Sweden. All the authorities just quoted hold a high rank in their
profession, and contributions from their pens frequently appear in the
_Quarterly Journal of Inebriety_, published at Hartford, Conn.
The Contemporary Review has lately published a series of papers on the
same topic, written in a popular style by several London physicians of
celebrity, including Dr. Walter Moxon, Sir James Paget and others, and
all opposing the doctrine of total abstinence and declaring themselves
in favor of beer as a promotive of the real temperance cause. Dr.
Albert T. Bernays, too, has considered with great minuteness the cause
of intemperance and his conclusion is that beer is the safest kind of
alcohol and should be adopted as a common beverage by all classes of
people.
In the Minnesota Legislature when the prohibitory law was under
consideration, Dr. Riley, a representative from Houston county, spoke
as follows: “In the district where I reside there is a large number of
Germans who have come from the old country and planted grapes, and now
there are magnificent vineyards stretching along the hillsides where
formerly there was not grass enough to feed a sheep. They raise large
quantities of very fine grapes which they ship all over the country.
They also make very fine wine. The proposed law will destroy these
vineyards of my constituents. * * * Perhaps it will be necessary to
pass a law to protect those miserable drunkards who cannot protect
themselves but it is not necessary to restrain others of their liberty
to drink when they want or need it.
“Why, I have seen ladies at a tea-party, perhaps not drunk, but
certainly very jolly from drinking tea, and yet they come to this
Legislature with petitions signed by all whom they could influence
or bulldoze into signing, men, women or children to the number of
ten thousand. There are eight hundred thousand people in Minnesota,
and we are proposing to let these ten thousand override the other
seven hundred and ninety thousand. They claim as prohibitionists that
drinking tends to impoverish the people. Do you believe that? Look at
the Germans! Many of them take a piece of land that would scarcely
support a hog and make a fortune of it. They all drink beer. They take
their wives and their children to the beer garden and sit down and
drink their beer every day, and even the babe in arms will stretch
to get a taste of it. These people are not impoverished by it. These
people are so healthy in my neighborhood that I have actually not been
able to make a living out of my German constituents.
“They say it tends to the degeneration of the human race. How does it
happen that in New England where prohibitory laws are in force the
race has so degenerated that they do not seem to be able to raise any
children? Look at the Germans who drink beer all the time. You will
find a large family of healthy children in almost every German house.
Are they degenerated?
“The children of total abstinence people are constantly dying. From the
vital statistics of Minnesota I learn that over two thousand children
died last year under two years of age. They would not have died if they
had been fed on good wholesome beer. I would advise mothers—and I have
advised them in my practice—to give their sickly children plenty of
beer, and I know I have saved many an infant’s life. Beer is the best
cure for dyspepsia in the world. I have cured women of this terrible
disease by advising them to drink three glasses of beer every day, and
I say again to you mothers that if you will drink beer and feed your
children on beer you will raise more and healthier children.
“Referring to the vital statistics of the state, I find that but six
men died of intemperance during last year—two of delirium tremens and
four of something else, which they couldn’t tell anything about, and
so called it intemperance. And yet you want to stop drinking. Eleven
were killed by horses during the same time. Why don’t you abolish
horses—never use them or go near them? Thirty-five committed suicide.
Why don’t you prohibit the use of firearms and knives, and drain all
your lakes and rivers for fear some poor fool will drown himself? Some
152 died of heart disease. I don’t want any heart in mine. Twenty
ladies were scalded to death. You ought to prohibit the use of hot
water for fear that more ladies will get into it and perish.
“England away across the sea has brewed beer for many hundred years and
will continue to brew for thousands of years more, and to the fact that
the English people have drunk beer all that time I do conscientiously
attribute her present greatness. Beer-drinkers are slow but sure. Look
at Germany, that great nation. We could not pay her for the money we
have borrowed of her. Her great army, the best in the world, her great
statesmen, her philosophers, were all raised on beer.”
[Illustration: _Fred Lauer_
HONORARY PRESIDENT UNITED STATES BREWERS’ ASSOCIATION]
The Hon. Frederick Lauer in a speech before the Brewers’ Convention at
St. Louis, June 4, 1879, thus presents a phase of the beer question
which is certainly of importance:
“What we now want to ensure the future happiness and prosperity
of the country is the enactment of liberal laws to induce the
industrious classes of overcrowded Europe to flock to our shores.
We want immigration for the purpose of building up our towns and
cities, developing our manufacturing enterprises, and cultivating the
millions of fertile acres in this country now lying idle. The thrifty
German is accustomed to his daily ration of beer. In the land of his
nativity he has his parks and public gardens, where family unions
and social gatherings take place amid the ecstatic influence of the
foaming lager. The English, Irish, Scotch, and people of other European
countries are noted patrons of malt liquors. The greatest liberality
should, therefore, be shown them in the indulgence in their customary
beverages in the land of their adoption. With the more general use of
malt liquors the hundreds of quack medicines now in the market will
disappear, as it has been proved by experience in countries where malt
beverages are the popular drink, that health and longevity are marked
features, and dyspepsia and chronic complaints are rare. The tide of
emigration is again swelling to this country. According to the _New
York Herald_ of the first of May last, the total number of immigrants
landed at New York for the first three months of 1879 was 11,288, more
than two-thirds of whom came from Germany, England and Ireland. The
emigration of aliens to the United States from 1789 to 1877 is set down
in round numbers at 10,000,000, who, with their descendants have built
up this great nation. Since May 5, 1847, the emigration to this country
has reached 5,732,183 souls. In view of these facts nothing should be
done to interfere with the happiness of those who seek our shores, but
by means of wise laws they should be protected in the enjoyment of
their rights and privileges. To be successful as a government we should
invite immigration, and develop our great natural resources, and then
by promoting health and temperate habits by the adoption of beer as the
national beverage, we will increase as a nation, and be in truth and in
fact the greatest country on the face of the earth.”
CHAPTER XII.
CONCLUSION.
In the foregoing pages it has been impossible to give a hundredth part
of the evidence that lies ready at hand in this matter of the use and
effects of beer, but we have endeavored, by careful selection, to
present such as must have weight with all readers. Nothing has been
stated as a fact which cannot be amply corroborated, and no inference
drawn that did not seem to be fully warranted by the premises. It has
been shown that beer is wholesome, and so mildly alcoholic as to make
drunkenness from its use very uncommon. A man who drinks in order to
become intoxicated, can, no doubt, accomplish his purpose with beer;
but such men are almost unknown where beer is the common beverage.
This abnormal impulse usually comes only in consequence of a course of
ardent spirits.
The evidence as to the cure of intemperance by the introduction of a
free use of beer is especially important, and one of the most striking
instances of such success is to be found in the case of Denmark, to
which we desire again to call special attention. This is the central
point of the whole question. Heartily desiring the progress of genuine
temperance, and fully believing that all efforts in the direction of
prohibition are false in theory and injurious in practice, that they
do not prevent intemperance and do produce many other evils, we hold
that the safe and only course is to popularize the use of beer, and
cannot doubt that government would do well to foster its manufacture
in every practicable way, and that taxation on the product should
be abolished, or at least made very light. Such a course would not
merely secure the very end which has been unsuccessfully attempted by
prohibitory laws, but it would do much more. It would diminish the poor
rates, save the money spent in prosecutions, which, after all, do no
real good, and incidentally improve the whole business condition. Some
refreshing, stimulating drink the people will have, and legislators
should seek to guide the instinct, not eradicate it. Men of the highest
scientific authority have again and again pronounced beer to be not
merely harmless, but beneficial. Experience in the countries where it
is most used develops the same result, and the readiness with which it
is adopted in place of ardent spirits, whenever it is of good quality
and low price, shows how easily the experiment of temperance on this
basis can be tried. Even advocates of total abstinence must admit
that beer is better than whisky. The fact that it adds greatly to the
enjoyment of a people must not be ignored. Here in America we are apt
to forget all but the work-a-day part of life, but the demand for
recreation exists and must be gratified in some way, and almost always
recreation is social, and is made more enjoyable and cheerful by some
mild stimulant. It refreshes and enlivens, and so contributes directly
to the social happiness that is the object sought.
It is to be hoped that legislators in general will soon learn to take
broader views than seem generally to have prevailed in the past.
Statesmanship is not bounded by the views of one or the other party
and is affected by no popular clamor. It does not enact a law because
it is loudly demanded by a certain set of persons, especially if these
persons have a hobby to ride, no matter how earnestly they may believe
in it. A statesman will see for instance in this temperance question,
that the stay of drunkenness must be through a social change. Legal
prohibition can do little while all the other conditions of the problem
remain unchanged. Something must be given for what is forbidden. If
beer is encouraged ardent spirits can be driven out, and when this idea
is once thoroughly understood and put in practice we shall have the
temperance era, so long expected and so ardently desired.
There is another subject which we approach with some reluctance,
knowing that however carefully our words may be weighed, there is
a large number of estimable individuals throughout the country and
particularly in the Eastern states, to whom they will probably give
offense. We allude to what is called the Sunday question, and the topic
is treated here because in this country beer drinking is, in the common
mind, intimately associated with the German Americans and their custom
of spending part of Sunday in recreation in a beer garden. The fact
that they do so has been more than once used as an argument against
them and against the use of beer, as if there were any real connection
between the character of the drink and such a custom on the part of its
greatest consumers even supposing the custom to be actually harmful or
immoral. As such a feeling exists, however, it seems worth while to
call attention to the fact that what is known as the New England Sunday
is not an essential part of Christianity as so many honestly suppose,
but something that in comparison with Christianity is new and local. We
need hardly say that in the early days of the church it was distinctly
taught that the time of the Jewish sabbath was past and for several
hundred years this view was generally held. Notice the following
passages from the New Testament:
“The law and the prophets were until John. * * Old things are passed
away; behold all things are become new. * * Brethren ye have been
called unto liberty; only use not that liberty for an occasion to the
flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in
one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. * *
Love worketh no ill to his neighbor.
“If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is
perfected in us. * * For love is of God; and every one that loveth is
born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for
God is love. * * But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and
walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that
darkness hath blinded his eyes.
“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another. * *
Love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Jesus himself taught the disregard of the sabbath as a day of ceasing
from labor or recreation and are we to suppose that both his teaching
and practice had no meaning?
Paul says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth
every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Let
no man therefore judge you in respect of a holy day or of the new moon
or of the sabbath days.”
The first legal enactment requiring an observance of Sunday as a
Sabbath, was foisted upon the Christian world A. D. 321, by Constantine
the Great—a heartless tyrant who had caused seven members of his family
to be put to death in cold blood, that he might attain political
and religious supremacy! He embraced Christianity because the Pagan
priests and pontiffs could not grant him absolution, and would not
fraternize with such a murderous monster! Hence he became the father
of the so-called Sunday laws. Even Constantine’s decree did not
interdict recreation nor the tillage of the soil. In general, through
the Christian world, the day was a holiday, such as it now is on the
continent of Europe. There the hours of service in the churches fall,
usually, in the morning, and are strictly observed while the rest of
the day is universally given to enjoyment. Let those, however, who are
accustomed to cry out at the notion of a continental Sunday, remember
that they are themselves the innovators, and let them, too, examine the
following passages from the writings of men whose names must command
respect, and not one of whom would speak in such a matter without
mature consideration:
“It will be plainly seen that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly
VIOLATE THE SABBATH. The dogma of the assembly of divines at
Westminster, that the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the
moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible.”—Archbishop Whately.
“As for the seventh day, that has gone to its grave with the signs
and shadows of the Old Testament. Its imposition by law leads to
blood and stoning to death those who do but gather sticks thereon; a
thing which no way becomes the gospel.”—Bunyan.
“The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular day
of worship has been appointed in its place is evident.”—Milton.
“They who think that by the authority of the Church, the observance
of the Lord’s day was appointed instead of the Sabbath, as if
necessary, are greatly deceived.—Melancthon.
* * “And truly we see what such a doctrine has profited; for those
who adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal and superstitious
observance of the Sabbath.”—John Calvin.
“As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for
keeping it; but if we do it ought not to be on account of Moses’s
commandment, but because nature teaches us from time to time to
take a day of rest. * * If anywhere the day is made holy for the
mere day’s sake, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to
dance on it, to do anything that will reprove this encroachment on
Christian spirit and liberty.”—Martin Luther.
“These things refute those who suppose that the first day of the
week (that is, the Lord’s day), was substituted in place of the
Sabbath, for no mention is made of such a thing by Christ or his
Apostles.”—Grotius.
Tyndale the martyr, Erasmus, Paley, McNight and a host of other
Christian authorities, were and are of the same opinion regarding
Sabbath observance. England and America stand practically alone in
retaining so much of the Jewish Sabbath. Here is a letter from Benjamin
Franklin to Jared Ingersoll of New Haven, Conn., which bears directly
on the subject and may be read with both interest and profit by those
who concern themselves in Sunday laws.[22]
[22] The original is in the possession of the New Haven Colony
Historical Society.
[Illustration: WILLIAM PENN,
The Quaker Brewer, and Founder of Pennsylvania, 1644-1718. (See page
26.)]
PHILADELPHIA, December 11, 1762.
“I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Connecticut
Religion from common Religion:—communicate, if you please, some of
these particulars that you think will amuse me as a virtuoso. When I
traveled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict observation
of Sunday; and that a man could hardly travel on that day among
you upon this lawful occasion, without Hazard of Punishment, while
where I was every one traveled, if he pleased, or diverted himself
in any other way; and in the afternoon both high and low went to
the Play or the Opera, where there was plenty of Singing, Fiddling
and Dancing. I looked around for God’s Judgments, but saw no signs
of them. The Cities were well built and full of Inhabitants, the
Markets filled with Plenty, the People well favored and well clothed;
the Fields well tilled; the Cattle fat and strong; the Fences,
Houses and Windows all in Repair; and no _Old Tenor_ anywhere in the
Country;—which would almost make one suspect that the Deity is not so
angry at that offense as a New England Justice.”
B. FRANKLIN.
A correspondent of the New York _Staats-Zeitung_[23] writes as follows:
“The Emperor of Germany has made a contribution to the discussion of
the Sunday question, that is very much to the point. It is an address
to the Prussian Synod, which had recently objected to the holding of
a review on Sunday, and reads thus: ‘He who instituted the Sabbath
has declared that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath. The puritanic and Calvinistic conception of the Sabbath as a
day of penance and repentance, has always been foreign to the feeling
and taste of the German people.’”
[23] New York _Staats-Zeitung_, Nov. 1, 1879.
These words of the Emperor will receive the hearty assent of every
German-American, and preachers and pietists may as well understand
that Germans in America will struggle as long for their free Sunday
as Germans in their old home have for a free German Rhine. They have
conquered back the “sacred stream” and something more into the bargain,
and we here shall have no less success in securing a free, cheerful
Sunday, if we remain united and true to our principles.
England formerly held the same views that then and since have prevailed
on the continent, but gradually the liberty of the day was restricted
and its character wholly changed. We have lately met with an excellent
summary of the course of legislation that produced this result. It
marks clearly the various stages of the restrictive process and we
cannot do better than reproduce it here for the benefit of readers to
whom it may prove novel.
“Prior to the statute of 1676, any act done on Sunday, except in
proceedings of courts, was of the same binding force as if performed on
any other day. Parliament sat on that day, for in the reign of Edward
I., in 1278 and 1305, three statutes were made on Sunday. Nor did the
first restraining laws make any distinction between Sundays and other
holy days. Thus the statute of 28 Edward III., Cap. 14, in 1357, says:
“Shewing of wools (_i. e._, by merchants) shall be made at the staple
every day in the week except the Sunday and solemn feasts of the year.”
No further enactment was made touching the matter in question for
nearly 100 years; but in 1448 was passed the act of 27 Henry VI., Cap.
5, entitled, “Certain days wherein fairs and markets ought not to be
kept,” which sets forth that “The King hath ordained that all manner
of fairs and markets in said principal feasts (of Ascension, Corpus
Christi, Assumption, and All Saints) and Sundays and Good Friday shall
clearly cease from all shewing of any goods or merchandises (necessary
victuals only except);” but in recognition of the fact that there had
previously been no such restriction, it is provided that “Nevertheless,
of his special grace (the King) granted to them power which of old time
had no day to hold their fair or market, but only upon the festival
days aforesaid, to hold the same authority and strength of his old
grant within three days next before said feasts or next after.”
The act of 4, Edward IV., Cap. 7, in 1464, seems to have been
occasioned by some special irritation from the dishonesty of
leather-dressers and shoemakers; for, after sundry stringent provisions
applying to them generally, it is provided that “No person, cordwainer
or cobbler, within the City of London * * * upon any Sunday in the
year, or in the feasts of the Nativity or Ascension of our Lord, or
in the feast of Corpus Christi, shall sell, or command, or do to be
sold, any shoes, huseaus, or galoches, or upon the Sunday, or any of
said feasts, shall set or put upon the feet or legs of any person, any
shoes, huseaus, or galoches.” This statute was repealed in 1522, but
re-enacted, in part, in 1604.
In 1552 was passed “An act for keeping holy days and feasting days”
(5 and 6 Edw. IV., Cap. 2), the preamble of which is an instructive
example of the pains taken by all Christians, Catholic and Protestant,
prior to the seventeenth century, to deny that Sunday or any other holy
or feast day, possessed of itself any sacredness or any higher claim
to observance than that of convenience for the purpose of uniformity
in worship. It ran thus: “For as much as at all times men be not
so mindful to laud and praise God * * * as their bounden duty doth
require; therefore, to call men to remembrance of their duty and help
their infirmity, it hath been wholesomely provided that there shall
be some certain times and days appointed wherein the Christian should
cease from all kinds of labors; * * * neither is it to be thought
that there is any certain time or definite number of days prescribed
in Holy Scripture, but that the appointment, both of time and also of
the number of the days, is left by the authority of God’s word to the
liberty of Christ’s Church to be determined and assigned orderly in
every country by the discretion of the rulers and ministers thereof,
as they shall judge most expedient for the true setting forth of God’s
glory and the edification of their people; be it therefore enacted,
that all the days hereafter mentioned (to wit: Sundays, the Feast of
the Circumcision, and twenty-two other feast days that are named, and
Mondays and Tuesdays in Easter Week and Whitsun Week) shall be kept
and commanded to be kept holy days, and none other.” It was further
provided, “That it shall be lawful to every husbandman, laborer,
fisherman, * * * upon the holy days aforesaid, in harvest, or at any
other time of the year when necessity shall require, to labor, ride,
fish, or work any kind of work at their free wills and pleasure.” This
Protestant law was repealed the next year by the Catholic government
of Mary, and restored in 1604, in the first year of James I. It is
strikingly similiar to the decree of Constantine the Great, made in
the year 321: “Let all Judges and people of the town rest, and all the
various trades be suspended, on the venerable day of the sun. Those who
live in the country, however, may freely and without fault attend to
the cultivation of their fields * * * lest, with the loss of favorable
opportunity, the commodities offered by Divine Providence should be
destroyed.”
In 1558 (1 Eliz., Cap. 2, Sec. 14,) was passed the first law requiring
attendance upon public worship “upon every Sunday, and other days
ordained and used to be kept as holy days,” upon pain of church censure
and a fine of twelvepence.
The English Puritans of the time of James I., were the first to impose
the name and character of the Jewish Sabbath upon the first day of the
week, and those who came to America brought the name and the idea with
them. To that seventeenth-century influence, and not to any scriptural
or ecclesiastical teaching of any earlier time, are we indebted for
sermons on Sunday observance. The doctrine held on that subject by most
evangelical Christians is not yet three hundred years old.
In 1625 was passed a law (1 Car. I., Cap. 1,) that “There should be no
meeting, assemblies, or concourse of people out of their own parishes
on the Lord’s day, for any sports or pastimes whatsoever; nor any
bear-baiting, bull-baiting, interludes, common plays, or other unlawful
exercises or pastimes used by any persons within their own parishes.”
“_This statute_,” says Blackstone, “_does not prohibit, but rather
impliedly allows any innocent recreation or amusement within their
respective parishes, even on the Lord’s day, after Divine service is
over;_” _and, in point of fact, both Charles I. and his father before
him issued proclamations encouraging such amusements after Divine
service._
In 1676 was enacted the well known “Lord’s Day act,” of 29 Car. II.,
Cap. 7, which prohibits generally all work, labor, and business on
Sunday, except works of necessity and charity, and which, with more or
less modification, forms the basis of all Sunday laws now extant in the
United States. Exceptions to this law in favor of hackney coachmen,
fishwomen, and chairmen, were enacted in 1694, 1699, and 1710, and a
clause prohibiting bird hunting was subsequently added, but it remained
in substance until alterations and repeals of English laws ceased to
have any force in this country.”
As an historical matter the question is not very abstruse and the truth
is well enough known to scholars everywhere; should there not then be
charity for honest convictions?
In many cases the practice for years has been tolerably liberal while
all the time the old and stringent puritanical Sunday laws of 1702 were
retained on the statute books liable to be enforced whenever a minority
should choose to demand their revival.
[Illustration: Belmont Avenue Brewery,
NEWARK, N. J.,
GOTTFRIED KRUEGER, PROPRIETOR.
_For historical sketch, see Appendix C, page 183._]
Such cases have recently been seen in many places in this and other
states, but particularly so in Newark, N. J., where the enforcement
of such an old act forbidding the sale of beer and other beverages
on Sunday caused a reaction of unexpected violence, and very
characteristic of the profound change that has already taken place in
the popular conception of the day. The circumstances in brief were as
follows: A considerable number of prohibitionists had organized under
the name of the Law and Order Association for the purpose of enforcing
the Sunday law and preventing the licensing of bar rooms. Numerous
prosecutions were made and carried through to conviction under the old
state law after having failed in the city police courts. Thereupon the
Citizens’ Protective Association was formed and in September, 1879,
a demonstration was made by a great procession, and the adoption of
resolutions calling for a repeal of the law which, after lying idle so
long, had suddenly been revived to the great injury of an established
business, and with manifest injustice to a large number of peaceable
citizens who conceived their rights to be interfered with, inasmuch as
a law long inoperative must practically be regarded as a dead letter
and ignored by those who, if they had supposed it to possess vital
power, would have removed from its jurisdiction or taken pains never
to come within it. The procession numbered ten or twelve thousand and
great enthusiasm was displayed, not only in the ranks, but by residents
all along the line of march. The matter was evidently one which took a
deep hold on the feelings of the community and none the less because of
a common feeling that they had been unfairly treated by the appeal to a
law not in harmony with the spirit of the times or of abstract justice.
A crowd is very apt to be wrong and it is easy to stir up the people,
but here the crowd had more reason on its side than it was itself
aware of, reason founded on history, and making the law that had been
enforced an unwarrantable attack on personal liberty. They felt that
it was so, though few probably would have been able to give a clear
explanation of the feeling or trace its justification by the facts.
As for enthusiasm, we are told that it needed no stimulus and can
easily believe it to have been so, for aside from the more abstract and
philosophical justice of their complaint, there was the immediate smart
felt by men who lose the day of recreation to which they have looked
forward all the week, or find that they are to suffer a pecuniary loss
and that their occupation is not only checked but stigmatized. The
matter made a great excitement and called out many bitter paragraphs on
both sides, but chiefly among the more narrow-minded and pharisaical
of so-called religious press. We have no space or disposition to go
into the details of their criticism, even for the sake of illustrating
how far misrepresentation and innuendo may be made to stand in place
of careful statement and sound argument. The case has been spoken of
because it is in some sense typical, because it represents the course
of public thought and feeling, and the change which even within two or
three generations has come over the rigid enactments of puritan early
settlers. These puritans did much good but it was all tempered and
shadowed by an austere severity that has no merit in itself and that
crushes out much the better part of life and obscures many a truth that
in itself is clear as noonday. The mind of the people has changed. It
is time that the law should be changed also. The _Christian Union_ has
said, “The sooner the issue is made in Chicago between a whole sabbath
and none at all, the sooner the Christian element in the community
will win the victory it will deserve. Half a sabbath is hardly worth
fighting for.” We say that the best rule for observing the day is that
which gives the greatest amount of harmless freedom and enjoyment to
the greatest number, each according to his own judgment and conscience.
Our foreign element is very large and has its own beliefs and
traditions, as dear and as implicitly held as those of any one whose
training and practice have been after the strictest sabbatarian pattern.
We have attempted here no argument, but simply given some cardinal
facts, and now leave the matter in the hope that those who dissent will
at least respect honest utterance and not allow their objections on
this one point to prejudice them against our discussion of the value of
malt beverages as aids to genuine temperance and useful friends to man.
We close as we began, with the words which seem to us to indicate the
only practical road to real temperance, and record again our motto
BEER AGAINST WHISKY.
APPENDIX A.
TOTAL PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER IN VARIOUS
COUNTRIES AND CITIES.
The tables here given have been prepared with great care after a
thorough examination and comparison of authorities. The discrepancies
and errors discovered in various published statements of a similar
nature have made the task a difficult one, but it is believed that the
present results will be found substantially accurate. Table A gives
a list of the chief beer producing countries, with the population of
each, its annual product in hectoliters and gallons, the number of its
breweries and the production per head of population. The countries
are arranged in the order of product _per capita_. Table B gives the
same countries arranged in the order of total production, and for
convenience of reference repeats the product _per capita_.
TABLE A.
| Population.
| | Production In Hectoliters. [24]
| | | Production In gallons.
| | | | Number of
| | | | Breweries.
| | | | |Production
| | | | |per head of
| | | | |population.
Bavaria, 5,022,390 12,422,272 329,110,208 6,240 65.5
Wurtemberg, 1,881,505 3,480,795 92,241,067 2,604 49.0
Belgium, 5,336,185 7,942,000 210,463,000 2,500 39.4
Great Britain
and Ireland, 31,628,338 47,000,000 1,245,500,000 26,214 39.0
Baden, 1,507,177 1,297,893 34,394,164 22.8
Denmark, 1,940,000 38,800,000 20.0
Saxony, 2,760,586 52,520,480 19.0
Holland, 3,865,456 2,078,000 55,067,000 560 14.2
Prussia 25,742,404 257,630,403 10,480 10.0
_proper_,
[25]
United States, 38,558,371 10,848,446 336,301,826 2,830 8.7
Switzerland, 2,759,854 890,000 23,585,000 400 8.5
Austro-Hungary, 36,373,000 11,323,444 300,071,266 2,353 8.3
Norway, 1,806,900 420,000 11,130,000 34 6.1
Sweden, 4,484,542 1,000,000 26,500,000 94 5.9
France, 36,905,788 7,370,000 195,305,000 3,110 4.4
Trieste and
Dalmatia, 522,800 52,575 1,393,237 3 2.6
Russia
_proper_, 65,504,659 3,040,000 80,560,000 520 1.2
German
Principalities,
not above
enumerated, 5,813,296 119,670,460 940 20.5
[24] Hectoliter—26½ gallons wine measure.
[25] Barrels.
TABLE B.
PRODUCTION. GAL. PER HEAD.
Great Britain and Ireland, 1,245,500,000 39.0
United States, 336,301,826 8.7
Bavaria, 329,190,208 65.5
Austro-Hungary, 300,017,266 8.3
Prussia _proper_, 257,630,403 10.0
Belgium, 210,463,000 39.4
France, 195,305,000 4.4
Wurtemberg, 92,241,067 49.0
Russia _proper_, 80,560,000 1.2
Holland, 55,067,000 14.2
Saxony, 52,520,480 19.0
Denmark, 38,800,000 20.0
Baden, 34,394,164 22.8
Sweden, 26,500,000 5.9
Switzerland, 23,585,000 8.5
Norway, 11,130,000 6.1
Trieste and Dalmatia, 1,393,237 2.6
German Principalities, not above
enumerated, 119,670,460 20.5
It will be seen from the above table that Germany, exclusive of German
Austria, brews the enormous quantity of 885,646,782 gallons of beer,
or about 20.7 to each individual in a population of 42,727,360. Most
of this is consumed at home, and great quantities are imported from
Christiana, Norway, and Copenhagen, Denmark, while ale and porter are
largely brought from England.
It is worthy of notice that Bavaria, which has been known for centuries
as the cradle of men of arts and sciences, stands at the head of the
list of beer producing countries. With a population of only about
five millions, it brews three hundred and twenty-nine million gallons
or 65.5 gallons to every individual; and next in rank is the little
kingdom of Wurtemberg, the native state of the great Schiller. Munich,
the capital of Bavaria is especially celebrated for the long array of
men of arts, letters and science who have either been born there or
adopted it as a residence. But it is, at the same time, the greatest
beer-drinking city in the world. It produced in the year 1876 no less
than 1,198,951 hectoliters = 31,772,201 gallons, and its actual home
consumption in that year was 956,455 hectoliters = 25,346,057 gallons,
which, in a population of 198,000, gives 128 gallons a year for every
individual, costing in all $6,216,955, or about $31 per head. The
amount paid for beer is less by $1,363,800 than the amount paid for
house rent. In the years 1877 and 1878 the amount paid for beer fell
off, but for the current year (1879) it will, according to statistics
thus far received, be larger than ever before. The taxes for the
municipal government and city taxes are less than a tenth of the amount
expended for beer—and yet there is not a more orderly and well behaved
city in the world than this same Munich. All this is indirect evidence
of great importance as to the social and intellectual effect that may
be expected to follow a free and even a very large use of beer.
Vienna stands in a similar category though it offers a less striking
illustration of the case than Munich does. It has, however, one brewer
whose operations are extensive enough to deserve special mention. This
is the well-known Anton Dreher, whose business, begun at Schwechat
in 1836, now comprises large establishments in four Austrian cities,
with an annual product of 500,000 barrels, paying a government tax of
$750,000.00 or more. The business employs combined water and steam
engines of 100 horse power, 400 brewers, 200 teamsters and common
laborers, 150 horses, and no less than 250 draught oxen.
Karlsruhe, the capital of Baden is also an important brewing city. Its
product is 4,884,350 gallons, and of this amount something over one
million gallons is contributed by the Albert Printz brewery alone.
It is, however, useless to attempt any mention of the cities or
districts that are distinguished for the quantity or quality of their
beer. We can only say that they are very numerous, and add that their
character is such as to corroborate all that has been said in this book
touching the beneficial effects of a free use of beer in the community.
APPENDIX B.
ANALYSES OF BEERS.
The following analyses will be found of interest to every student of
the beer question.[26] The first is from Professor Mulder’s work on
beer.
[26] Additional analyses may be found in the body of the book, pages
97, 98 and 99.
I.—BAVARIAN BEERS. Specific Water Carbonic Extract Alcohol Year
weight Acid
at 16°
Young winter beer of 1018 870.83 1.40 58.74 38.6 1849
Munich,
“ “ “ 1019 879.13 1.60 60.16 32.8 1853
“ “ Augsburg, 1013 883.30 1.80 45.30 38.9 1854
“ “ Bayreuth, 1013 866.90 1.80 53.60 42.8 1854
“ “ Landshut, 1018 880.50 1.80 57.40 33.5 1854
“ “ Anspach, 1015 889.40 1.80 51.60 32.2 1854
Lager (summer) beer 1011 880.50 1.60 39.40 43.5 1846
of the brewery of the
Court of Munich,
“ “ “ “ of Degelmayer, 1022 867.20 1.30 66.40 36.5 1853
“ “ “ ““ of the Court, 1018 870.80 1.80 51.00 42.5 1852
“ “ (young) 1028 851.94 1.40 77.20 88.8 1850
“ “ of June, 1852, 1017 872.22 1.80 53.18 40.7 1852
“ “ (10 months old) 1012 854.20 1.50 50.10 51.7 1853
of the Franciscan
Convent,
Specific Water Carbonic Extract Alcohol Year
weight Acid
at 16°
Strong beer of 1026 825.00 1.80 77.70 52.4 1853
Zacherl’s brewery,
Salvator beer of “ “ 1034 820.80 1.60 94.50 46.0 1853
Bock beer 1027 830.55 1.70 92.07 42.2 1852
Ale of 1022 769.40 1.80 84.40 77.5 1850
Sedelmaier’s
brewery,
II.—FOREIGN BEERS.
Bottom-yeast beer of 1016 869.40 1.80 46.90 48.4 1844
Wauka (Prague)
Upper “ Pstross “ 1017 867,20 1.50 50.70 44.6 1844
“ “ Pchowitz, near 1013 881.90 1.60 47.70 38.5 1844
Prague,
“ “ Pstross, 1016 876.30 1.80 50.40 39.9 1844
“ “ Berlin, 1014 855.50 1.90 51.80 49.9 1851
“ “ Magdeburg, 1016 884.70 1.80 50.40 35.3 1853
Porter of Barclay & 1017 840.20 1.60 60.20 53.7 1852
Perkins, of London,
Scottish ale of 1030 730.50 1.50 109.40 84.7 1851
Edinburg, two years old,
Lambick of Brussels, 1004 862.50 2.00 34.12 55.4 1841
Faro beer of “ 1004 879.16 2.00 29.58 49.1 1841
Barley beer of “ 1006 868.05 1.90 38.39 50.4 1841
Mum of Brunswick, 1231 511.68 1.60 476.40 3.6 1854
ACCORDING TO CH. MENE.
Kind Brewery Name of Specific Alcohol Residue of Ash Nitrogen
of Firm. Beer. weight. evaporation per
Barley. per liter. cent.
S. B. Detalle & Ord. 1.0100 3.6 50.120 1.920 0.785
Cie. Ham. brown
(Somme) beer,
S. B. Detalle & Ord. 0.9973 4.4 48.000 1.080 ——
Cie. Ham. pale
(Somme) beer,
S. B. Detalle & Workmen’s 1.0106 4.5 57.120 1.520 0.722
Cie. Ham. beer,
(Somme)
S. B. Detalle & Ladies’ 1.0103 4.0 48.600 1.600 0.760
Cie. Ham. beer,
(Somme)
S. B. Lux & Co., Light 1.0106 3.8 42.480 1.800 0.620
Paris, beer
(Seine)
S. B. Schmidt & Young 1.0225 4.3 51.400 2.600 0.770
Co., Paris, bock,
S. B. Schmidt & Store 1.0182 4.4 57.210 2.400 0.800
Co., Paris, beer,
W. B. Watteblest Ord. 1.0050 4.5 39.440 1.280 ——
(Vernelles) brown
Pas de beer,
Calais,
W. B. Watteblest Ord. 1.0078 4.5 35.800 1.440 0.710
(Vernelles) pale
Pas de beer,
Calais,
W. B. Meesemaeker Barley 1.0130 5.5 73.120 3.700 0.840
(Dunkerque) wine,
Nord,
W. B. Meesemaeker Pale ale, 1.0127 5.2 68.960 1.200 ——
(Dunkerque)
Nord,
W. B. Pollet, Export 1.0080 4.5 48.160 1.195 0.750
Courtrai beer,
(Belgium)
W. B. Hauthyssen, Ord. 1.0115 4.7 51.105 1.310 0.715
Haunut brown
(Liege) beer,
S. B.—Summer Barley. W. B.—Winter Barley.
ACCORDING TO HEYDLOFF.
Alcohol. Extract.
Beer of Nuremberg, 3.8 6.2
“ Erlangen, 3.8 6.0
“ Bamberg, 4.1 5.8
“ Erfurth, of Treitsokle, 3.7 5.5
“ “ of Schlegel, 4.1 6.5
“ “ of John, 3.7 6.0
“ “ of Buchner, 4.2 6.5
English porter, 5.1 9.2
Composition of some Swedish beers:
----Percentage of----
Extract. Alcohol. Water.
Porter of Stockholm, 6.6 6.0 87.4
Porter of Goteborg, (Carnezie & Co.) 5.4 6.8 88.8
Strong beer of Neumiller’s brewery in Stockholm, 12.4 4.6 83.0
Swedish beer of Beijnoff (Upsala) 8.9 3.0 88.1
“ Hillberg “ 8.2 2.6 89.2
Beer of the Bavarian brewery in Upsala, 6.4 4.7 88.9
Bavarian beer of the Munich brewery in Stockholm, 7.4 4.0 83.6
Erlanger beer, 6.2 4.7 89.1
Bavarian beer of Oerebeo, 5.5 4.1 90.4
Export beer of Stockholm, 5.2 4.8 90.0
Svagdricke (small beer) of Beijnoff (Upsala), 3.2 2.1 94.7
Svagdricke (small beer) of Hillberg, 3.3 2.2 94.5
ACCORDING TO C. HIMLEY.
Extract of Phosphoric
Names of the Beers. Malt. Alcohol. Acid. Water.
Double beer of Copenhagen, 13.68 2.16 0.065 84.16
(Orp) Salvator, 8.20 4.10 0.084 87.70
Waldschlosschen 5.50 3.84 0.088 89.66
(Erich) Erlanger beer, 6.22 3.95 0.074 89.83
Berliner Actienbier, 6.20 3.44 0.068 90.36
(Betz) Eckernforder, 6.10 3.05 0.062 90.85
Schluter, 6.09 3.60 0.074 90.31
Scheibel, 6.00 3.12 0.064 90.88
Erlanger, 5.70 3.57 9.070 90.73
(Erich) Erlanger ale, 5.62 3.04 0.076 91.34
Hoff’s malt extract, 5.60 3.04 0.075 91.36
(Eger & Co.) Christiana, 5.54 3.77 0.088 90.69
(Henniger) Erlanger, 5.50 2.60 0.072 91.90
Dreiss, 5.40 3.10 0.060 91.50
Orp, 5.00 3.25 0.056 91.75
ACCORDING TO HEKMEYER.
Alcohol Acetic Lactic Carbonic Extract. Ash. Albumen.
in Acid. Acid. Acid.
100
volumes.
1—_Beers of
Utrecht._
Old Brown (uit 3.8 0.035 0.32 0.073 3.36 0.34 0.41
den boog),
Young pale, 4.1 0.008 0.25 0.103 2.86 0.25
(uit den boog),
Lambick, (uit 5.4 0.016 0.35 0.159 3.49 0.36
den boog),
Lambick, (uit 4.6 0.120 0.40 0.090 1.79 0.21
den kraus),
Table beer (uit 4.4 0.044 0.16 0.163 3.40 3.41
den aker),
2—_Other Dutch
Beers._
Princessen-bier, 4.0 0.060 0.17 0.090 2.60 0.21 0.46
Heumens-bier, 4.2 0.012 0.27 0.135 2.79 0.28
Bosch-bier (W. 5.2 0.044 0.42 0.010 4.83 0.38
Van Heeren),
ACCORDING TO LACAMBRE.
—Alcohol— —Extract—
Young Old Young Old
Beer. Beer. Beer. Beer.
London ale, 7 8 6.5 5
Hamburg ale, 5.5 6 6 5
London ale, (common,) 4 5 5 4
Porter, 5 6 7 6
London porter, (common,) 3 4 5 4
Munich, Salvator, 5 6 12 10
Bock, 3.5 4 9 7
Bavarian beer, (common,) 3 4 6.5 4.5
Brussels, Lambick 4.5 6 5.5 3.5
“ Faro, 2.5 4 5 3
Diest Guide beer, 3.5 6 8 5.5
Peeterman, of Lou vain, 3.5 5 8 5.5
White beer, 2.25 3.25 5 3.5
Double Ujtzet of Ghent, 3.25 4.5 5 4
Single “ “ 2.75 3.5 4 3
Barley beer of Antwerp, 3 3.5 4.5 3
Strong beer of Strasburg, 4 4.5 4 3.5
Strong beer of Lille, 4 5 4 3
White beer of Paris, 3.5 4 8 5
ACCORDING TO G. MONIER.
NAMES OF THE BEER. DEXTRINE, GLUCOSE. SUBSTANCES, SALTS.
ALBUMINOID ETC.
ALCOHOL.
(in
volumes.)
Cubic Grammes. Grammes. Grammes.
cntms.
Beer of France (Nord), 40.00 7.03 31.77 1.60
Beer of France (Nord), 32.50 4.80 31.00 2.10
Beer of France (Nord), 36.00 6.60 33.10 2.20
Pale ale (Burton), 60.50 8.25 39.35 2.80
Pale ale (Burton), 55.00 8.30 40.10 2.65
Munich beer, 56.25 15.10 58.40 2.52
Munich beer, 56.50 16.20 56.45 2.40
Amsterdam beer, 53.75 13.55 51.50 2.20
Paris beer (called 47.00 16.30 45.00 2.65
Strasburg beer),
Paris beer (called 45.00 14.35 51.30 2.05
Strasburg beer),
Paris beer (called 47.50 11.60 43.40 2.00
Strasburg beer),
Vienna beer, 52.50 11.00 55.30 2.30
ACCORDING TO WACKENRODER.
Alcohol. Extract. Albumen. Ash.
Beer of Lichtenhain, 3.2 4.5 0.05 0.2
Beer of Ilmenau, 3.1 7.1 0.08 0.2
Beer of Jena (called of 3.0 6.1 0.05 0.2
Erlangen),
Beer of Weimar (called 2.8 6.3 0.03 0.2
of Bamberg),
Beer of Oberweimar, 2.6 7.3 0.02 0.3
Double beer of Jena, 2.1 7.2 0.03 0.2
BERLIN BEER—27 SAMPLES.
Alcohol, 4.74 per cent.
Extract, 4.94 “ “
Malt sugar, 3.78 “ “
BERLIN WHITE BEER.
Alcohol, 1.48 per cent.
Extract, 3.65 “ “
Ash, 0.12 “ “
Original gravity, 7.94 “ “
NASSAU BEER.
Alcohol, 3.737 per cent.
Free carbonic acid, 0.285 “ “
Extract, 6.035 “ “
Phosphoric acid, 0.072 “ “
BEER OF HANOVER.
Max. Min. Mean.
Specific gravity at 17.5°, 1.0353 1.0115 1.0165
Water } { In beer } 91.61 85.37 89.64
Alcohol } { freed from } per cent., 5.05 0.72 4.01
Extract } { carbonic acid } 13.91 4.43 6.34
Ash, 0.28 0.19 0.24
Phosphoric acid in ash, 0.093 0.024 0.069
Original gravity of wort, 17.37 12.33 14.36
APPENDIX C.
ILLUSTRATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF BREWERIES.
The brewery of modern times is very different from anything conceived
of one or two hundred years ago. Not merely its extent but all its
appliances are characteristic of this busy, progressive age, that knows
how to plant money in extensive outfits and supervision, in order that
it may yield a greater return, just as seeds put in rich earth and
carefully tended during growth give larger harvests of better quality
than were ever looked for in the old hap-hazard, starving plan. We
cannot mention one in fifty of those who deserve notice. Think, for
instance, of the great brewery of M. T. Bass, at Burton on Trent,
which produces about one million barrels a year; or those of Anton
Dreher, turning out five hundred thousand barrels, and see if it is
possible to attain such results except by modern processes and modern
business energy. No house in the United States has yet reached so
great a product, but more than one is on the direct way, and it is
not only possible but probable that within fifty years the largest
establishments and the finest beer will be found in this country. In
the multitude of those who fairly deserve mention it seems almost
invidious to select a few, but it has seemed best to give a brief
account of some that, in one way or another, may be regarded as typical
exponents of this department of American industry. Those mentioned are
not always the largest or best known, but they represent different
parts of the country and together form a tolerable epitome of the
whole brewing business, with its larger and smaller breweries, old and
new establishments, and various ways of procedure, the common feature
being that all endeavor to produce a thoroughly good article, and trust
to the merit of the product for success rather than to any temporary
advantages that may be gained by cheapening their brew at the expense
of its flavor or wholesomeness. This is the noticeable fact in the
brewing trade at the present time.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF HON. FREDERICK LAUER OF READING, PA.
The brewery of Mr. Frederick Lauer of Reading, Pa., is not only among
the oldest in the country, but has remained from the beginning in the
hands of the Lauer family. It was established in 1823 at Womelsdorf, a
few miles from Reading, by the father of the present proprietor, who
had just arrived from Germany. In 1826 it was removed to Reading, and
the business started on the same spot where it is now carried on. The
elder Lauer was an indefatigable worker, and is said at this time to
have taken no more than two or three hours regular sleep a day. In 1835
his son Frederick succeeded to the sole proprietorship of the brewery,
and its progress from this time was very rapid. For several years ale
and porter had been brewed, but no lager beer was made in the country
until 1842. In the year 1844 Mr. Lauer began to brew lager beer, and
was thus one of the pioneers in this industry; and since that time ale,
lager beer and porter have been produced constantly. The brewery is a
model of neatness and convenience, perfect in every appointment and
the special pride and pet of its owner, who would much rather lose a
year’s profits than tolerate dirt or disorder or the production of a
poor beer. Mr. Lauer has not, however, been constantly occupied with
his private business. For at least thirty years he has been one of
the prominent men of the city of Reading; has held various important
public positions, political and otherwise, and has done great service
in securing equable legislation in matters affecting the brewing
trade. A man of quick perception and untiring energy, he has again and
again accomplished alone, or nearly alone, things that were considered
almost impossible, and from whose attempt his associates recoiled. An
instance in point is thus described in a recently published sketch of
his life: “The way the tax was saved was as follows: Shortly before the
adjournment of Congress, he (Mr. Lauer) received a letter apprising him
that the Committee on Ways and Means were about advising an increase.
He immediately telegraphed to the nearest members of the Brewers’
Committee to join him at Washington. They had an interview with the
Committee of Ways and Means, but the Committee refused to make any
modification in the bill, as it had already passed the first reading in
the House. There were ten members of the Brewers’ Committee, nine of
whom, after the interview, agreed to allow the fifty cents increase and
make no further exertion in the matter. Mr. Lauer, the tenth, was not
satisfied; and, after gaining the consent of the Committee, he called
on a number of members of the House, and urged upon them the ruinous
consequences to the brewing business which would follow the passage of
the bill as reported. The same day, February 11, 1865, the bill came up
in Committee of the Whole, when the desired modification was made by a
vote of seventy-three to sixty-eight, and the following week the bill
came up for final passage, when the bill, as modified, was passed by a
majority of four. The members from Kentucky who had voted against the
modification in the first place, voted for the bill when it came up on
the third reading, they having been influenced through the exertions of
Mr. Lauer. Immediately after its passage, Thad. Stevens, chairman on
the Ways and Means, jumped up and exclaimed, ‘That d—d Lauer did it.’”
This is only one of many instances in which Mr. Lauer’s efforts have
been of the greatest value to brewers at large and incidentally to the
whole country. He was the first president of the United States Brewers’
Association, and has more than once been able in time of scarcity to
secure such shipments of malt or hops from foreign countries as to
relieve the distress and materially reduce the inflated price of these
articles.
THE JOSEPH SCHLITZ BREWING CO., MILWAUKEE, WIS.
In the year 1849 Mr. August Krug built a small brewery at Milwaukee on
Chestnut street, between 4th and 5th streets, and the year after he
added vaults of a capacity of 150 barrels, situated on the corner of
3d and Walnut streets. His sale was about 250 barrels. From this small
beginning there developed one of the largest breweries in the country.
Mr. Krug died in 1856, and Mr. Joseph Schlitz who had come to Milwaukee
during the previous year took the management of the business which
at first increased only moderately although managed with skill and
energy. In the year 1865 the sales were 4,400 barrels. Five years
later he began the erection of the present brewery on the corner of 3d
and Walnut streets, the same place where the original vaults had been
situated. The greater part of the present buildings were completed
within two years, and the sales for 1871 amounted to 12,283 barrels.
The period of rapid development had now been reached, and the advance
up to the present time has been remarkable as may be seen from the
following table of the yearly sales, beginning with the year 1870.
1870, Barrels, 8,707
1871, “ 12,283
1872, “ 30,868
1873, “ 49,623
1874, “ 69,624
1875, “ 74,813
1876, “ 71,017
1877, “ 79,538
1878, “ 82,068
1879, “ ending April, 110,832
In 1874 the business was made into a stock company under the title
“Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company,” with Mr. Schlitz as president, the
secretary and superintendent being respectively, Mr. August Uihlein and
Mr. Henry Uihlein. Being thus partially relieved of the immediate cares
of business Mr. Schlitz in the following year sailed for Germany to
visit his native home of Mayence. The vessel was the Schiller, which,
as all readers must remember, was wrecked on the Scilly Islands, May 7,
1875, and Mr. Schlitz was one of the many victims of that disaster. In
these circumstances the company organization was probably a fortunate
circumstance for the business. The death of a sole proprietor or even
a sole nominal proprietor is apt to derange a business, no matter how
capable the successor may be, and this difficulty is almost avoided
in the case of an established company. The present management is as
follows:
President, Henry Uihlein; secretary, August Uihlein; superintendent,
Alfred Uihlein. The brewery in its present form occupies two whole
squares, and still larger accommodations may be needed at no distant
day. There is a new ice-house 100 × 124 feet, four stories high, and
with a twenty-four foot basement. The cellars have a capacity of 25,000
barrels; the whole storage capacity is 70,000 barrels, and the brewery
is already fitted for the production of 200,000 barrels a year. There
is a large coopering establishment and the gathering of ice alone
occupies 300 men and 90 teams for about twenty days every year. The
beer is sent all over the United States and to Brazil, Central America
and Mexico, in both barrels and bottles. About one million bottles were
sold in 1877, and in the succeeding year the amount was more than two
millions. The bottling department alone occupies a building 46 × 150
feet, with basement, and fitted with all conveniences for the work.
The analysis of this beer gives the following result for the percentage
of alcohol: ordinary lager beer 4.5 volumetrically, and 5.6 by weight.
The bottled lager beer shows as a result of four analyses within six
months, six per cent. of alcohol volumetrically, and 4.8 by weight.
This is certainly an excellent showing, and calculated to enhance the
reputation of any brewery.
THE BREWERY OF MR. GOTTFRIED KRUEGER, NEWARK, N. J.
The brewery now owned by Mr. Gottfried Krueger was founded in 1851 by
Louis Adam and J. Braun, the latter of whom died before the buildings
were completed. Mr. Adam at once formed a partnership with John Laible
under the firm name of Laible & Adam, and pushed the work so well that
within the year brewing was commenced, and a sale of 1,200 barrels for
the first twelve months secured.
The property then consisted of six city lots, a small frame house
partly used as a saloon, a one-story frame brewery thirty feet square,
a stable for two horses and vaults for 500 barrels of beer. The brewing
capacity was about twenty barrels.
In 1852 Mr. Gottfried Krueger, the present proprietor, came to this
country, and being a relative of Mr. Laible entered the brewery as an
apprentice. Here he remained until Messrs. Laible and Adam dissolved
partnership in 1855, Mr. Laible building a new brewery and Mr. Adam
continuing the old business. Mr. Krueger accompanied Mr. Laible and
became foreman in the establishment where he remained until 1865
when in conjunction with Mr. Gottlieb Hill he bought the old brewery
of Louis Adam and commenced business under the firm name of Hill &
Krueger. During the interval a new brewery had been added and a new
stable for six horses, while the sale had increased to 4,000 barrels
and the brewing capacity to fifty barrels. This advance, however, was
destined to be greatly surpassed by that made under the new management.
The first step was the building of two new vaults of a capacity of
5,000 barrels. This together with numerous minor improvements was
accomplished during the first year, and within the same time the sale
of beer was doubled. The years next succeeding saw a rapid development.
In 1866 the firm built a new three-story brick malt and store-house; in
1876 a large building for fermenting rooms; in 1868 stables for twenty
horses; in 1869 an ice-house of 4,000 barrels capacity, and also vaults
for 2,000 barrels. The result fully justified these preparations for an
enlarged business for the sale increased steadily year by year and in
1875 amounted to 25,000 barrels.
At this time Mr. Hill was compelled by the state of his health to
retire from business, and on the 16th of February, 1875, Mr. Krueger
became the sole owner of the property which then covered the entire
block. Adding in 1878 a model office building and in 1879 new stables
for forty-five horses, he has now one of the finest breweries in the
State. The sale for the current year will be over 40,000 barrels.
In explanation of the cut we may add that the malt and brew-houses
are situated on Belmont avenue, the office and stables on West Kinney
street, the ice-house on Charlton street, and the yards etc., on
Montgomery street.
Every one connected with the establishment, from Mr. Krueger down,
is thoroughly fit for his duties and zealous in their discharge. The
management is by the proprietor himself, ably seconded by Mr. Theodore
C. W. Eggerking who has been long and successfully connected with the
business.
APPENDIX D.
LIST OF BREWERS WITH PRODUCT FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, 1878 AND 1879.
ALSO, PRODUCT BY STATES.
There is some difference of opinion as to the propriety of publishing
such information as the annual product of the various breweries in
the country, and it therefore seems proper to explain why it has been
decided to give the figures in these pages, and how the information has
been obtained.
For some time the particulars were furnished to certain parties in
Chicago and New York, by a clerk in the Internal Revenue Department
at Washington. In this there was probably an injustice, for what is
demanded by the law cannot be withheld by the brewer, and both analogy
and general reasoning indicate that this forced information should
be considered as confidential, and not exposed to the comment of
indifferent persons or business rivals.
This view of the case is the one now held by the Department, as appears
from the following correspondence:
_Official._
FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.
(Copy.)
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
September 15, 1879.
HENRY H. RUETER, ESQ.,
_President United States Brewers’ Association_.
SIR: Your attention is called to an article in the _Brewers’ Gazette_
of August 15, ultimo, headed, “Thrown Together; A Comparative View
of the so-called Brewers’ Returns,” in which are embraced copies of
letters from this office in relation to lists of reports of sales of
fermented liquors for the years 1878 and 1879, as published by the
_Western Brewer_ and A. E. Tovey.
Please inform me whether the brewers of the United States desire
that such tabulated statements be prepared by this Bureau as therein
stated for publication.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) GREEN B. RAUM,
_Commissioner_.
REPLY OF THE PRESIDENT OF BREWERS’ ASSOCIATION.
(Copy.)
UNITED STATES BREWERS’ ASSOCIATION,
BOSTON, September 25, 1879.
GEN. GREEN B. RAUM,
_Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C._
SIR: In reply to your esteemed letter of the 15th inst., referring to
the preparation and publication of tabulated statements of brewers’
sales, and asking if, in my opinion, the brewers of the United States
desire that such tabulated statements be prepared by the Internal
Revenue Bureau—I beg to state, that I have no data which would enable
me to answer your question definitely. Many brewers, undoubtedly,
feel indifferent in the matter; some may favor the publication, and
others are opposed to it. They argue that there is no parallel case
in any other branch of trade; that individual business affairs should
not be thus made public; that the publication of individual sales
leads to undue competition; and that these lists are a bone of bitter
contention between the publishers.
If the inquiry has been addressed to me with reference to the future
action of the Department, I beg leave to suggest that the brewers’
wishes can be best ascertained at their next yearly meeting, in June,
and I would respectfully ask you to delay action in the matter till
then.
I am, sir, most respectfully yours,
HENRY H. RUETER.
ANSWER TO ABOVE FROM INTERNAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
WASHINGTON, September 29, 1879.
HENRY H. RUETER, ESQ.
_President United States Brewers’ Association, Boston, Mass._
SIR: Acknowledging the receipt of yours of the 25th instant, in
reply to office letter of the 15th instant calling attention to an
article published in the _Brewers’ Gazette_ relative to errors in
reports of sales of fermented liquors for the years 1878 and 1879,
as published by the _Western Brewer_ and A. E. Tovey, and inquiring
if such publications were considered desirable by the brewers of the
United States, I have to say that I fully concur in your opinion
that, while some may favor the publication of such statistics, others
would object thereto, and would argue that there is no parallel case
in any other branch of trade; and that individual business affairs
should not thus be made public; that such publications lead to
undue competition; and that they become a bone of bitter contention
between publishers. For this reason, I have decided to prohibit the
furnishing of such lists hereafter to any and all parties.
Respectfully,
R. E. ROGERS.
_Acting Commissioner._
On the other hand, while it is certain that many brewers are glad to
have their product extensively stated, it is at least probable that
very few have any real objection. In order to test the question we sent
a printed form of inquiry, as to production, to all the brewers in
the country. A large majority furnished the desired information, and
as many others doubtless failed to answer simply through negligence
or indifference, it seemed certain that the number of objectors
was so small that this list might be published with propriety and
to the satisfaction of far the larger part of those interested. It
is to be noticed that this is a very different thing from printing
enforced statements, without a shadow of authority from the brewers
themselves. In this book the figures are generally furnished by the
brewers and for this very purpose. Where no reply has been received,
the product has been stated according to the best testimony that could
be obtained, and the total result is certainly more accurate than
any yet published. This is not because the government returns were
incorrect, but because of carelessness in transcription, or errors
of the types, or both. Whatever the cause, so many errors have been
discovered in the so-called official lists of those who obtained their
information through Washington, as to greatly impair the value of
those tables, and create much dissatisfaction among those who find
an erroneous impression of their business thus disseminated through
the country. Without claiming that our own are absolutely free from
error, we are prepared to maintain their substantial correctness and
their superiority to any yet offered to the public. The product here
shown is greater than that stated earlier in this book. The returns
on which that statement was made seem to have been incomplete at the
time of publication, unless the fault lies in the transfer of figures
or in the footings, a kind of defect from which few public documents
of a statistical character are wholly free. The number of breweries
here given is less than the former statement, owing to the omission
of a considerable number of the smaller establishments, concerning
which no satisfactory information could be obtained, and the further
omission of those whose owners were known to object to a publication
of their business. The total product of all so left out is known to be
inconsiderable, though it cannot be exactly ascertained.
Those most apt to find fault with a public statement of the amount of
their business are the smaller brewers, who sometimes fear that their
business will suffer if it is known that they dispose of less beer
than some rival. To such it may be said that a good business need not
be a large one. There are plenty of men in the country who work on a
comparatively small scale, and yet would not be induced to extend their
operations. They make enough, as it is, to satisfy their wants, and
they are not loaded down by the cares that attend a struggle to sell
as much as possible. They fear no injury because their sale is not so
large as that of some one else, and they are perfectly in the right, as
experience shows. Still again, there are many small breweries to-day,
that will be great fifteen or twenty years from now. We have shown in
Appendix C something of the possibilities of sudden development in this
business, and with the increasing taste for beer these opportunities
will be better than ever. It is not against a brewery that it is small.
Its product may be of the first quality, and it may be small simply
because the owner does not care to have it large.
Other considerations might be adduced, but it seems as if enough had
been said to justify the printing of statistics prepared as are those
here furnished, especially as they must be interesting to every one
who makes a study of the beer question and wants as much and as varied
information as he can obtain.
SUMMARY
OF THE BEER PRODUCT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE YEARS 1878 AND 1879,
WITH THE INCREASE OR DECREASE DURING THE SECOND OF THESE YEARS.
Name No. of No. of No. of Decrease Increase
of State Breweries Barrels Barrels
sold from sold from
May 1, May 1,
1877-8. 1878-9.
Alabama, 1 184 74 110
Arkansas, 1 110 72 38
Arizona, 7 713 720 7
California, 195 379,373 385,839 6,466
Colorado, 29 23,901 23,464 437
Connecticut, 19 53,528 51,988 1,540
Dakota, 14 4,616 4,531 85
Delaware, 3 7,841 9,563 1,722
District 10 27,506 29,126 1,620
Columbia,
Georgia, 1 7,330 7,710 380
Idaho, 12 936 1,484 548
Illinois, 115 579,888 608,627 28,739
Indiana, 76 182,448 191,729 9,281
Iowa, 136 186,176 169,030 17,146
Kansas, 34 20,995 24,709 3,714
Kentucky, 36 127,771 143,753 15,982
Louisiana, 10 36,352 47,407 11,055
Maine, 1 7,031 7 7,024
Maryland, 63 208,228 205,042 3,186
Massachusetts, 39 711,166 663,978 47,188
Michigan, 140 203,043 212,231 9,188
Minnesota, 114 101,916 113,529 11,613
Missouri, 72 547,590 582,372 34,782
Montana, 22 4,677 5,516 839
Nebraska, 27 27,100 29,270 2,170
Nevada, 35 12,116 13,969 1,853
New Hampshire, 5 127,07 116,888 10,183
New Jersey, 57 502,54 519,864 17,290
New Mexico, 2 110 180 70
New York, 365 3,556,678 3,980,716 424,038
North 1 4 4
Carolina,
Ohio, 186 968,332 965,480 2,852
Oregon, 39 13,362 16,159 2,797
Pennsylvania, 317 1,041,486 1,034,082 7,404
Rhode Island, 8 25,210 27,831 2,621
South 2 778 372 406
Carolina,
Tennessee, 4 6,980 7,107 127
Texas, 37 10,050 7,718 2,332
Utah, 20 9,490 11,476 1,986
Vermont, 1 285 173 112
Virginia, 3 10,694 15,694 5,000
Wash. 20 7,965 7,231 734
Territory,
West Virginia, 10 23,086 23,906 1,036
Wisconsin, 226 508,553 585,068 76,515
Wyoming
Territory, 8 4,060 4,505 445
----- ---------- ---------- ------- -------
2,520 10,279,299 10,848,194 100,777 671,888
LIST OF BREWERS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE PRODUCT FOR
THE YEARS ENDING MAY, 1878, AND MAY, 1879.
ARKANSAS.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Fort Smith, Freiseis, Joseph, 110 72
ARIZONA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Alexandria, Minger, Jos. 54 50
Florence, Will, P. & Co., 60 60
Globe City, Medler, Fred & Co., 41 49
Prescott, Raible, John, 225 269
“ Rodenberg, J. N., 250 211
Rio Verde, Horn, Wm., 37 34
Tucson, Levin, Alex., 46 47
--- ---
Number of Breweries, 7. 713 720
CALIFORNIA.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Adin, Jonas & Bofinger, ---- ----
Alameda, Alameda Brewery, 817 487
Altaville, Becker, John, 350 350
Anaheim, Conrad, Fred, 145 158
“ Goodale, I, 357 281
Auburn, Grohs, Frederick, 1,060 1,020
Benicia, Rueger, John, 622 697
Benton, Partzwick Brewery, 116 87
Bishop Creek, Munzinger, Philippay & Co., 57 189
Boca, Boca Brewing Company, 9,717 11,035
Bodie, Frankenberger & Davidson, ---- 198
“ Carion, A. A., ---- ----
Boonebar, Ganser, Benj., ---- ----
Camp Star Brewery, 30 61
Independence,
Castroville, Lauck, George, 284 404
Cherokee, Bader, Chs., 139 144
Chico, Croissant, Chs., 448 563
Chollas Doblin, C., 140 150
Valley,
Cloverdale, Schaeffer & Auker, 48 159
Colusa, Kammerer, G. & Co., 800 884
Columbia, Bixel, Joseph, 174 185
Crescent City, Mayhoffer, Joseph, 59 81
Davisville, Faber, Wm., 74 77
Dixon, Sieber & Oberholzer, 622 586
Downieville, Bosch, F., 300 321
“ Nessler, L., 275 282
Dutch Flat, Mitchell, Wm., 320 365
Etna, Küppler, Chs., 336 394
Eureka, Harper, I., 148 126
“ Huck & McAllenan, 210 273
Folsom, Yaeger, Peter, 320 419
Forest Hill, Andres, Joseph, 112 114
Fort Bidwell, Fulger, M., 102 159
Fresno, Erpelding, J. L., ---- 48
Garrote, Garrote Brewery, 125 149
Germantown, Miller, A. & Co., 162 300
Gilroy, Herold, Adam, 742 718
Grass Valley, Benkelman, D., 666 699
“ Frank, John, 162 183
“ Fritz, Chs., 465 398
“ Hodge, Thomas & Co., 944 10,085
Greenwood, Muhlback, Nancy, ---- 35
Gaudalupe, Togninva, Tomasine, 32 87
Havilah, Neff, Bernhard, 34 87
Haywards, Lyon’s Brewery, 483 502
“ Booken & Herman, 1,198 1,587
Healdsburg, Müller, Carl, 170 180
Hormitos, Lessmann, Henry, 81 61
Hollister, Narcoe, Henry, 300 366
Hot Springs, Fantz, Edw., 661 678
Independence, Fernbach, Jo., 138 139
Ione City, Raab, C., 314 380
Iowa Hill, Schmidt, John, 100 87
Jackson, Beiser & Schroeder, 241 435
Kernville, Cook, Wm, 220 109
“ Wroesch, R. R., 149 137
Knight’s Dolling, Victor, 221 263
Ferry,
Lakeport, Smith, R. O., 170 188
Livermore, Livermore Brewery, 215 261
Lone Pine, Lubken, John, 115 74
“ Munzinger & Dodge, 155 35
Los Angeles, New York Brewery, 2,479 2,075
“ Philadelphia Brewery, ---- 1,430
“ U. S. Brewery, ---- 236
“ Schwarz, Louis, ---- ----
Lower Lake, Mather & Linck, 330 380
Mariposa, Weiler, John, 124 115
Marysville, Lieber, Gottlieb, 725 756
Mayfield, Ducker & Company, 950 1,056
Mendocino, Larowskia, J. C., ---- 93
Merced, Heinerath & Gossner, 239 290
Middletown, Munz and Scott, 180 318
Modesta, Lorensen & Peterson, 454 531
“ Braun, M., 141 260
Mokelumne Disbrow & Co., 224 192
Hill,
“ Mokelumne Hill Brewery, 452 382
Monitor, Scossa, John, ---- ----
Napa, Pfeiffer, Philip, 251 328
Nevada City, Blasauf, Mary, 186 157
“ Dreyfuss, L. W., 833 702
“ Fogeli, Casper, 142 163
“ Weiss, Emile, 385 422
North Weiss, Valentine, 39 57
Bloomfield,
“ Hieronimus, S., ---- 105
North San Koch, G. W., 356 427
Juan,
Oakland, Welscher & Westermann, 2,600 3,670
“ Kramm & Dieves, 7,385 9,000
“ Bredhoff & Co., 4,124 4,600
Oleta, Schroder, Henry, 459 376
Oroville, Schneider, Wm., 456 439
Pajaro, Dulla & Werner, 136 249
Petaluma, Robinson, Geo. & Co., 818 531
“ Michelie & Griess, 613 666
Pine Grove, Sass, C. D. F., 232 234
Placerville, Collins, Fred, 408 424
“ Zeiss, Jacob, 300 281
Point Arenas, Schlachter, John, 181 105
Quincy, Schlatter, Wm., 954 94
Red Bluff, Bofinger, W. F., 602 563
Redwood City, Eureka Brewery, 572 576
“ Hadler, C., 896 1,077
“ Kriess, M., ---- 418
Sacket’s Gulf, Wolf, John, 720 20
Sacramento, Borchers & Schwartz, 2,416 2,504
“ Gruhler, E. & C., 2,885 2,675
“ Kerth & Nicolaus, 3,812 4,242
“ Knauer, F. C., 3,020 2,995
“ Scheld, P., 2,040 2,164
“ Ochs, M., 1,763 2,163
Salinas, Lurz & Menke, 324 478
San Andreas, Bloom, John, 124 96
San Anderson, John, 499 424
Bernardino,
San Buena Hartman, Fredolin, 140 237
Ventura,
San Diego, Dobler, C., 49 155
“ Walter, Otto, 147 200
San Albany Brewery, Everett St.,
Francisco, Hagerman, F. & Co., props., 13,815 13,000
“ Albrecht, James, 623 Braman 880
St., ----
“ Bauer, John, 120 Fillmore St. ---- 617
“ Buss & Hensler, 209 Treat ---- 800
Ave.,
“ Bavaria Brewery, Vallejo and
Green Sts. 3,335 3,297
“ Bay Brewery, 612, 614 and
616 7th St., Lumann, G.,
proprietor, 6,244 1,750
“ Broadway Brewery, 637
Broadway, Adams, Jacob, 5,225 4,045
prop.,
“ Burnell, J. H. & Bro., Ninth
Avenue, 142 400
“ Chicago Brewery, 1420 to
1434 Pine St., Aherns, H. &
Co., proprietors, 22,088 20,261
“ Christ, John, 25th St., 90 80
“ Empire Brewery, Chestnut
St., Harold, John, 19,535 17,014
proprietor,
“ Enterprise Brewery, 2019
Folsom St., Hildebrant &
Co., proprietors, 4,190 4,300
“ Eureka Brewery, 235 First
St., Schweitzer & Bro.,
proprietors, 7,154 6,800
“ Golden City Brewery, 1431
Pacific St., Buckle, Geo.,
proprietor, 1,610 1,500
“ Golden Gate Brewery, 713
Greenwich Chas., proprietor,
St., Metzler, 4,675 4,969
“ Hayes Valley Brewery, 612
Grove St., Wahlmuth & Co.,
proprietors, 2,901 3,000
“ Hensler & Fredericks. ---- ----
“ Hibernia Brewery, Howard
St., Nunan, M., proprietor, 17,250 19,546
“ Humbold Brewery, 1839
Mission St., Noethig & Turk,
proprietors, 6,784 8,000
“ Jackson Brewery, Mission
St., Frederick, Wm. A., 7,522 8,008
proprietor,
“ Kirby, Thos. J., 528½ Noe ---- ----
St.,
“ Lafayette Brewery, 725 Green
St., Grogan & Austell,
proprietors, 5,462 5,649
“ Marks Brewery, Tehama St.,
Marks, Samuel, proprietor, 498 312
“ Mason’s Brewery, 527
Chestnut St., Mason, John, 9,625 8,000
proprietor,
“ National Brewery, Fulton
and Webster Sts., Gluck &
Hansen, proprietors, 13,270 13,200
“ New York Brewery, Shotwell
St., Kirby, L. J., 2,457 508
proprietor,
“ North Beach Brewery, Powell
and Chestnut Sts., Schwarz,
Jos., proprietor, 426 360
“ Pacific Brewery, 271 Tehama
St., Fortmann & Co.,
proprietors, 12,668 9,947
“ Philadelphia Brewery, 240
Second St., Wieland, John,
proprietor, 43,407 44,276
“ Railroad Brewery, Valencia,
between 15th and 16th Sts.,
Schuster, Fred., proprietor, 1,647 1,300
“ Schultz & Geitner, 26th St., ---- 1,400
“ South San Francisco Brewery,
R. R. Ave. and 14th St.,
Hoelscher, A. &. Co.,
proprietors, 2,192 2,200
“ South San Francisco Stock
Brewing Co., 2118 Powell St.,
10,420 8,900
“ Swan Brewing Co., 15th and
Dolores Sts., 971 481
“ Swiss Brewery, 414 and 416
Dupont St., 765 498
“ Union Brewery, Hess & Co.,
proprietors, 7,020 5,800
“ U. S. Brewery, Franklin and
McAllister Sts., 15,477 13,300
“ Washington Brew’y, 723
Lombard St., 17,326 16,321
“ Wilmot Brewing Co., 324
Green St. 250 100
“ Willows Brewery, Fauss, O. &
Co., proprietors, cor. 19th
and Mission Sts., 6,501 7,600
San Jose, Eagle Brewery, 3,983 4,052
“ Herman A., 191 159
“ Krumbs Brewery, 938 859
“ San Jose Brewery, 1,343 1,864
“ Schramm & Schnabel, 8,372 10,034
San Juan, Bentler & Beck, 162 96
San Leandro, Columbia Brewery, 181 239
“ Rantzan, T. H., 181 102
San Luis Lindenmeyer, Julius, 295 122
Obispo,
“ Hauser & Williamson, ---- ----
San Rafael, Bagen & Goerl. 1,374 1,559
Santa Barbara, Mueller, H. & Bro., 110 144
Santa Clara, Santa Clara Brewery, 284 480
Santa Cruz, Bausch, Henry, 793 625
Santa Rosa, Metzger & Haltinner, 1,029 1,146
Shasta, Behrle & Litsch 358 379
Sonora, Baccigalapi, Louis, 297 179
“ Bauman, John, 640 571
South Vallejo, Deminger, Fred, 1,706 2,534
Stockton, Boemer & Wirth, 515 612
“ Neistrath, Eliz., 505 716
“ Rothenbush, D., 384 819
Sutter Creek, Rabolt, L. 661 759
Sutterville, Theilen, N., 1,168 1,081
Truckee, Grazer & Stoll, 245 234
“ Menk, Paul, 76 52
Ten-Mile Franz & Bader, ---- 5
River,
Ukiah, Wurtenburg, S., 338 259
Vallejo, Widenmann & Rothenburg, 1,722 1,706
“ Smith, P. & J., 250 1,097
Vallecito, Vallecito Brewery, 129 113
Visalia, Mooney’s Brewery, 594 581
“ Empire Brewery, ---- 33
Volcano, Griesbach, Geo. 40 28
Watsonville, Kuhlitz, C., 72 118
“ Palmtag, Christian, 1,495 1,721
Weaverville, Meckel, J., ---- 34
Woodland, Schuerley & Miller, 1,458 1,206
“ Wirt, Geo. L., 200 180
Yreka, Yeters, Chas. 297 305
“ Junker, Chas., 311 298
Yuba City, Klempp, Fred., 270 305
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 189. 379,373 385,839
COLORADO.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Black Hawk, Haubrick, Sam’l, 791 580
Boulder City, Weisenhorn & Voegte, 1,410 945
Central City, Lehmkul, Wm., 890 1,175
“ Richards & Wickett, 777 190
“ Staum, Chr., 903 ----
Colorado City, El Paso Co. Brewing Co., 222 723
Del Norte, Bingle & Co., 170 300
Denver, Denver Brewing Co. 5,858 ----
“ Colorado Brewing Co., ---- 59
“ Bendleburg, Geo., 40 60
“ Melsheimer, Max, ---- 1,290
“ Oppenlander, G. F., 1,423 1,472
“ Zang, Philip, 6,110 8,408
Fair Play, Summer, Leonard, 229 344
Georgetown, Summer, John & Bro. 694 670
Golden, Schueler & Coos, 2,857 3,004
Granite, Mesch & Gerter, 11 155
Idaho Springs, Ullrich, Fred, 106 99
Lake City, Fisher & Co, 50 182
“ Hirt, Chas., 135 203
Leadville, Fuernstein. C., ---- 210
“ Leadville Brewery, ---- 300
“ Gau, Elizabeth J., ---- 632
Malta, Sponagel, V. H., ---- 300
Ouray, Geiger, D., ---- 80
Pueblo, Merz, Elias, 850 1,062
Rosita, Townsend, T. D., 95 153
Silver Plume, Boche, Otto, ---- ----
Trinidad, Schneider, Henry, 280 868
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 29. 23,901 23,464
CONNECTICUT.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Bridgeport, Eckart Bros., 2,599 2,120
“ Kutscher, Louis, 164 162
“ Klaus, Fred, 3,200 3,584
“ Knoedler, Christian, 66 86
“ Loehr, C., 1,687 2,588
“ Stoehr, C., 1,687 2,588
“ Winter, Albert, 4,170 3,362
Hartford, Herold Capitol Brewing Co., 2,058 2,339
“ Shannon & McCann, 5,547 6,151
“ Sichler, George, 2,243 2,400
Middletown, Hopke & Wilkins, Jr., 689 1,870
New Haven, Bassermann, Geo. A., 4,564 3,902
“ Fresenius, Ph., 8,716 8,080
“ Hull, Wm. & Son, 9,454 7,430
“ Nicholas, Chas., 321 233
“ Yastron, Rich., 22 18
Rockville, Link, Erhardt, 1,018 784
Thompsonville, Matthewson, John, 4,967 3,791
Waterbury, Hellman & Kipp, 356 500
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 19. 53,528 51,988
DAKOTA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Bismarck, Walker, J. E., 684 502
“ Walters & Kalberer, 714 404
Central City, Rosenkranz & Werner, ---- 264
Custar City, Parks, Robert, ---- ----
Deadwood, Downer & Co., 12 120
“ Nishwitz, Wm., ---- 25
“ Rodebank & Nielson, ---- ----
“ Schuchardt, A., ---- ----
Fargo, Brokorsch, Jos. W., ---- 90
Fort Totten, Brenner, E. W., 339 365
Lead City, Jentes, Hall, ---- 19
Sioux Falls, Knott, G. A. & Co., 371 1,023
Yankton, Forester John, 1,621 885
“ Roptenscher & Co., 875 834
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 14. 4,616 4,531
DELAWARE.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Wilmington, Hartman & Fehrenbach, 3,871 4,700
“ Specht, Carl, 90 308
“ Stoeckle, Jos., 3,880 4,555
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 3. 7,841 9,563
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Georgetown, Duetz, Catherine, 38 and 40 792 661
Green St.,
Washington, Adt. F. J., bet. 13th and
14th Sts., E. and D. and S. 2,569 1,960
E.,
“ Albert, John, cor. 25th and
F. N. W., 686 597
“ Cook, John G., 45 N St., N. 264 364
W.,
“ Dickson, Chris., 719 4 1-2 1,373 1,309
St.,
“ Henrich, Christian, 1229
20th St., N. W., 7,400 10,711
“ Juenemann, Geo., 400 E St.,
N. W., 11,341 11,151
“ Kernwein, George, No. 124 N
St., N. W., 203 261
“ Roth, Jacob, 318 First St., 2,258 1,674
N. W.,
“ Zanner, Wm., 526 4 1-2 St., 620 438
S. W.,
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 10. 27,506 29,126
GEORGIA.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Atlanta, Atlanta City Brewing Co., W.
H. Tuller, President, 7,330 7,710
IDAHO.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Atlanta, Wilmer & Motlow, 6 240
Boise City, Broadbeck, John,
“ Lemp, John, 329 492
Bonanza City, Hepburn, John & Co.,
Challis, Albiez, Frederick,
Idaho City, Haug, Nicolas, 160 198
Jordan Creek, Frank & Gundorf,
Lewiston, Weisgerber Bros., 307 380
Pioneer City, Stadtmiller, Jos., 45 58
Placerville, Kohny, Chas., 25 11
Salmon City, Spahn, Michael, 31 45
Silver City, Summercamp, W. F., 33 60
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 12. 936 1,484
ILLINOIS.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Alton, Jehle & Peters, 3,183 3,995
Aurora, Knell, John,
“ McInhill, J. V., 651
Beardstown, Rink, Anton, 1,645 1,284
Belleville, Hartman Bros., 11,951 13,452
“ Stoegle, Fidel, 4,300 4,022
Belvidere, Waldeck, J., 307 77
Blue Island, Bauer, Henry, 238 116
“ Metz & Schwachow, 2,199 680
Bloomington, Meyer & Wochner, 4,968 5,169
Bowmanville, Volmer, W., 1,006 1,004
Canton, Koebel, L., 182 144
Carlinville, Deibel, G. P. & Bro., 1,244 1,188
Chicago, Bartholomae & Leicht Brewing
Co., 688 to 706 Sedgwick St., 28,293 31,245
“ Bartholomae & Roesing, 335 W.
12th St., 12,939 10,648
“ Brand, M. & Co., Elston Ave.
and River St., 6,173 34,419
“ Busch & Brand Brewery Co., 29
and 31 Cedar St., (May and
June, 1878), 29,941 5,070
“ Chicago Union Brewing Co.,
27th St. and Johnson Ave., 6,379 4,283
“ Devereaux, J., 432 N. State 250 138
St.,
“ Downer & Bernis Brewing Co.,
91 S. Park Ave., 56,770 66,878
“ Fortune Bros., 138 to 144 W.
Van Buren St., 12,222 13,555
“ Funk, Ernst, 44 Willow St., 362 180
“ Gillen, Schmidt & Co., 416
25th St., 256 462
“ Gottfried, M., 166 Archer 19,595 16,831
Ave.,
“ Hoerber, Jno. L., 220 and 222
W. 12th St., 1,912 2,125
“ Jerusalem, Jos., 307 Rush St., 342 476
“ Keeley Brewing Co., 28th St.,
near Cottage Grove Ave., 6,499 8,766
“ Schmidt & Glade, 9 to 35
Grant Place, 21,128 26,534
“ Schoenhofen, Peter, 34 to 50
Seward St., 36,014 41,447
“ Seipp, Conrad Brewing Co.,
foot of 27th St., 103,787 108,347
“ Seiben, Michael, 335 and 337
Larrabee St., 2,942 3,182
“ Wagner, Ludwig, 942 N. Clark
St., 388 446
“ Walther, Frank, 408 Paulina
St., (March and April, 1879), ---- 517
Columbia, Monroe Brewery., 1,173 1,384
Danville, Stein, John, 1,861 1,587
Decatur, Harpstrite & Schlanderman, 4,147 3,076
DeKalb, Corkings, Thos., 1,013 797
Dixon, Clears, Jas. B., 510 435
“ Plein, Nicholas, 977 1,475
East St. Louis, Heim, F. & Bro., 11,380 14,020
Edwardsville, Mick, Henry, 1,026 564
Elgin, Althen, Casper, 1,350 962
Fayetteville, Luers, P. & F., 474 ----
Freeburg, Meyer, Aug., 675 313
Freeport, Baier & Seyfarth, 2,134 1,954
“ Milner, Jos. & Bros., 358 539
Galena, Hony & Metzger, 456 488
“ Heller & Haser, 831 628
“ Meller, Math., 1,550 2,066
“ Speier, Rudolph, 783 476
Geneseo, Gasser, Geo. & Co., 2,718 2,453
Harvard, Huebner, John, 630 536
Havana, Dehm & Mack, 1,590 1,192
Highland, Schott, Martin J., 3,023 3,855
Jacksonville, Rick, H. & Sons, 2,144 1,177
Joliet, Eder, Henry, 4,544 4,608
“ Porter, Edwin, 7,494 7,467
“ Sehring, Fred., 4,143 4,258
Kankakee, Radeke, F. K., Brewing Co., 2089 1,779
Kewanee, Lee, Frederick, 590 560
Knoxville, Krotter, John, 363 130
Lacon, Hochstrasser & Co., 936 652
La Salle, Eliei, L. & Co., 13,184 12,225
Lebanon, Hammel, Jacob, 3,772 3,717
Limestone, Keller, Geo., 60 70
Lincoln, Mueller, P. & Son, 1401 ----
Mascoutah, Eisele & Koehler, 1,887 1,232
McHenry, Bailey, G., 697 710
Mendota, Henning, Christian, 5,715 5,457
Morris, Bauman & Hahl, 204 318
“ Gabhard, Lewis, 1,611 1,701
Mt. Carroll, Medlar, Chas., 114 114
Mt. Vernon, Wetzel & Fuchs, ---- ----
Murphysboro, Broeg, Conrad, 565 272
Naperville, Stenger, John, 4,939 2,640
Nauvoo, Schenk, G. T. 441 288
New Athens, New Athens Brewery, 1,023 698
Northville, Rentlinger, Richard, ---- 141
Ottawa, Rabenstein, C., 3,278 2,857
“ White, Alfred, 1,441 1,594
Pecatonica, Berridge, Wm., 251 256
Pekin, Winkel, Aug., 2,186 2,221
Peoria, Bitz, Conrad, 171 296
“ Gipps & Co., 9,526 11,019
“ Weber, Aug., 2,503 921
Peru, Peru Beer Co., 3,446 3,743
“ Union Beer Co., 2,778 2,705
Quincy, Eber Bros., 1,556 1,386
“ Dick & Bros., 12,926 15,600
“ Koerner, M., 19 85
“ Luther, J., 483 2,100
“ Ruff Bros. & Co., 3,793 4,775
Rockford, Fisher & Wahl, 473 336
“ Kauffman, Aug., 398 493
“ Peacock, Jonathan, 982 846
Rock Island, Huber, Ignatz, 6,758 7,308
“ King, J. A. & Co., 2,826 2,856
“ Wagner, Geo., 10,205 9,937
Savannah, Keller, Jos., 1,200 1,194
Sigel, Wiedmeier, D. & Co., 42 7
Silver Creek, Haegeli & Roth, 345 897
Spring Bay, Eichhorn, Peter, 630 610
Springfield, Reisch & Bros., 8,758 9,358
Sterling, Decker, J. & Co., 737 510
“ Hermann, Chas., 315 1,129
Thornton, Bielfeldt, J. S., 932 1,105
Trenton Bassler, Paul, 1,110 850
Warsaw, Popel, Martin, 58 160
“ Schott & Son, 1,073 877
Washington, Roth, John, ---- 14
Waukegan, Besley’s Waukegan Brewing
Company, 4,596 4,081
West Western Brewing Co., 10,019 11,618
Belleville,
Wheeling, Periolat Bros. & Co., 1,875 1,889
Wilmington, Markert & Co., 2,844 3,512
Woodstock, Arnold, Zimmer & Co., 4,031 3,336
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 115. 579,888 608,627
INDIANA.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Aurora, Crescent Brewing Co., 29,037 30,731
Bowling Green, Stucki, Fred, 420 188
Bremen, Wolff, Hugo, 471 277
Cambridge, Straub, Cleophas, 418 366
“ Ingerman, Henry, 477 390
Cannelton, Huber, Jacob, 300 373
Centre, Weckerie, J., 1,300 ----
Columbia City, Schaffer, H., 986 1086
Columbus, Schreiber, Aug., 720 434
Connersville, Billan, Valentine, 190 405
Covington, Miller, Joseph, 958 1,290
Crawfordsville, Muth, Jacob, 1,285 676
Crown Point, Korn & Suckfield, 828 515
Decatur, Rolver, Anna, 218 280
Evansville, Cook & Rice, 15,738 17,158
“ Ulhner & Hoerz, 1,522 6,119
Ferdinand, Ruhkamp, Henry, Jr., 665 775
Fort Wayne, Centlivre, C. L., 2,245 3,715
“ Horning, L. J., ---- 41
“ Linker, Hey & Co., 1,310 1,616
“ Lutz & Co., 3,436 3,327
German Pauli, A., 145 ----
Township,
Harmony, Bauer, John, 40 ----
Harrison, Klant, Reinhold, 385 180
“ Krodle, Jno. B., 453 378
Huntington, Boos, Jacob, 901 889
“ Herrberg, J. & A., 202 106
Indianapolis, Balz & Co., 1,452 ----
“ Lieber, P. & Co., 12,000 15,000
“ Maus, C., 5,233 7,037
“ Koehler & Co., 300 344
“ Schmidt, Mrs. C. F., 22,640 25,288
Jeffersonville, Lang Henry, 533 429
Kendallville, Paul, H. C. 1,164 1,068
La Fayette, Newman & Bohrer, 5,537 4,872
“ Thieme & Wagner, 5,076 6,524
La Porte, Puissant, Jno. B., 1,555 880
Lawrenceburgh, Gamer, J. B., 3,988 2,542
Lawrenceville, Ritze, Anton, 368 343
Logansport, Mutschler, Jno., 2,097 1,044
Madison, Belser & Co., 1,808 ----
“ Greiner, Jno., 2,202 2,522
“ Weber, Peter, 5,104 5,040
Michigan City, Zorn, Philip, 2,592 3,300
Mishawaka, Kaume, A., 3,595 3,642
Muncie, Garst, A. J., ---- 100
“ Alvery, Ch., ---- ----
Napoleon, Morbach, Nicholas, 175 280
New Albany, Buchheit, Barbara, 3,045 3,535
“ Nadorff, Frank, 105 492
“ Reising, Paul, 3,900 3,211
New Alsace, Meyer, Martin, 248 192
“ Zix, Michael, 210 190
Newburg, Brizins, Chas., & Co., 489 378
North Vernon, Schierling, John, 169 156
Oldenberg, Roell, B., 988 805
Perry, Hartmetz, John, 667 620
Peru, Cole, J. O., 5,312 4,729
Plymouth, Weckerle, J., 1,031 928
Richmond, Martischang, Joseph, 170 197
“ Minck, Enril, 215 217
Rochester, Metzler, John B., 437 218
Seymour, Dammrich, Martin, 396 250
“ Kaufman, J. D., 279 288
South Bend, Muessel Bros., 1,811 2,129
St. Leon, Biscoff, L., 20 36
St. Peters, Busold, John A., 195 240
Suhman, Schneider, P., Jr., ---- 400
Tell City, Becker, Chas., 480 430
“ Voelke, Fred, 765 776
Terre Haute, Mayer, Anton, 10,043 11,753
“ Wheat, N. S., 351 271
Troy, Thaeny, John, 595 745
Valparaiso, Hiller Geo., 798 468
Vincennes, Hack & Simon, 3,969 5,919
Wabash, Rettig & Alber, 1,310 1,126
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 76. 182,448 191,729
IOWA.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Afton, Heine, John, 277 64
Anamosa, Rick, M. F., 572 208
Atlantic, Fisher, Ernest, 219 1,370
Auburn, Bilger, Katherine, 885 540
Avoca, Kampf, Jacob, 1,300 1,250
Bellevue, Neustatdt, H., 814 892
Belle Plaine, Michel, Mathias, 1,258 1,258
Boone, Herman, J. M., 2,482 2,017
Boonsboro, Zimbelman, L. & Co., 2,583 3,090
Bridgeport, Walz, Bernhart, 321 408
Brown’s Brown, Henry, 174 147
Station,
Buffalo, Barthberger, John, ---- ----
“ Hoffbauer, Hugo, 374 282
“ Kantz, Theo., 366 286
Burlington, Bosch Bros., 2,124 ----
“ Bosch, John, Geo., & Co., 2,778 2,255
“ Heil, Casper, 1,808 ----
“ Rothenberger, P. P., 1,670 1,091
“ Werthmueller & Ende, 2,500 2,441
Cascade, May, Francis, 947 757
Cedar Falls, Lund, Hans N., 597 ----
“ Pfeiffer, H. & Bro., 412 547
Cedar Rapids, Magnus, C., 5,932 6,915
“ Williams, Geo. & Co., 6,237 6,166
Charles City, Andre, Gertrude, 2,514 1,678
Clarinda, Peterson, B. A., 495 368
Clinton, Lauer & Allen, 1,032 1,417
Concord, Sandler, A. Jr., 10 ----
Council Bluffs, Geise, Conrad, 6,006 5,740
County of Iowa, Amana Society, 1,731 1,813
Creston, Bolig, P., 118 ----
“ Bolig & Co. ---- ----
Davenport, Frahm, M., 6,006 6,107
“ Koehler & Lange, 6,609 7,563
“ Lage, J. & Co., 4,052 3,779
“ Lehrkind, J. & Co., 2,676 3,012
“ Noth, G. & Sons, 2,125 ----
Decorah, Addicken, Mrs. G., 1,890 1,872
“ Klein, Jos., 1,395 924
Des Moines, Aulmann & Schuster, 1,646 2,185
“ Kinsley, Joseph, 341 362
“ Mattes, Alois, 3,325 2,169
“ Mattes & Jung, 1,224 1,314
De Witt, Yegge, V., 1,234 1,234
Dorchester, Tacke, Jos., 321 183
Dubuque, Glab, Adam, 3,483 ----
“ Heeb, A., 8,327 8,072
“ Meuser & Co., 3,288 3,437
“ Peaslee & Co., 3,497 940
“ Peir, John, ---- 1,410
“ Tschirgi, & Schwind, 4,171 4,348
Dyersville, Esch & Bros., 1,198 1,432
Elgin, Shorie & Lehman, 604 532
Elkader, Schmidt, J. B. & Bro., 1,644 1,145
Fairfield, Toeller & Suess, 795 482
Fayette, Moser, Martin, 119 ----
Fort Dodge, Koll, Jno., 882 ----
“ Schmidt, D., 802 ----
Fort Madison, Burster, Anton, 558 476
Schlapp, Henry, 1,584 1,316
Franklin Best, William, 134 150
Center,
Garnavillo, Schumacher, H., 611 663
Grand Meadow, Koering, Jos., 1,051 736
Guttenburg, Hassfield, Wm., 55 60
“ Jungk, Aug., 1,146 1,050
“ Roth, John, 144 352
“ Walter, Rudolph, 100 ----
Hamburg, Nies, Philip, 1,984 2,095
Independence, Seeland, Cris., 429 489
“ Wengert, John, 1,235 1,608
Iowa City, Dostal, Jno. P., 3,999 3,301
“ Englert & Rittenmeyer, 1,398 1,052
“ Hotz, Simon, 2,945 2,452
Iowa Falls, Althen, John, 166 ----
Jefferson, Roth, Peter, 400 ----
Keokuk, Anschutez, F. W., 703 580
“ Leisy, Mrs. M. 2,425 2,239
“ Pechstein & Nagel, 973 949
Lansing, Haas, Jacob, 1,907 1,373
Lemars, Diamond, Herbut A., 58 ----
“ Maning, L. H. & Co., ---- 45
Lyons, Tritschler & Tiesse, 3,414 3,187
Marengo, Knepper, T. C., 420 480
Marion, Schneider Bros., 3,588 3,916
Marshall, Roth, Peter, 276 ----
Marshalltown, Bowman Bros., 2,224 3,018
“ Vogel, Geo., 42 265
Mason City, Brohm & McDevitt, 210 385
Maquoketa, Dostal & Hoffmann, 1,713 1,782
McGregor, Hagensick, J. L., 939 773
Montrose, Spring, Martin, 169 62
Mt. Carmel, Gram, A. L., ---- ----
Muscatine, Dold, Chas. J. Brewing Co., 1,980 2,120
“ Dorn, Jacob, 204 108
“ Eegerman, Mary, 995 1,025
“ Schaefe, John, 1,800 ----
“ Witteman, A., 2,117 1,580
New Hampton, Gross, A. A. 1,050 1,050
New Vienna, Baeumle & Ferring, 754 1,238
Nodaway, Auun & Peterson, 495 ----
Nora Springs, Festel, Florian, 112 120
Osage, Pierce, R. H., 770 600
Osceola, Jacobs, Chas., 370 480
Oskaloosa, Blatner & Newbrand, 975 728
Ottumwa, Hausman & Bauer, 2,379 2,398
“ Hoffman, B., 2,756 3,398
“ Schaefer & Hoffmann, ---- ----
“ The Wm. Kranner Brewing Co., 2,320 4,351
Pella, Blattner & Herbig, 372 419
Postville, Koenig, Jos., 1,051 ----
Red Oak, Stroh, Charles, 960 550
Rockford, Marke, S., 942 1,042
Sevastopool, Munzinger, G., 1,250 1,275
Shell Rock, Scully, Jas., 287 97
Sherrill’s Haberkon, Geo., 140 ----
Mound,
Sioux City, Franz & Co., 2,148 3,120
“ Selzer, R. 1,512 1,522
Spillville, Nockles, Frank, 911 945
“ Schwela & Glasbrenner, ---- 288
Stacyville, Huxhold, J. H. C., 201 150
Strawberry Kleinlein, John, 921 858
Point,
Stuart, Eber, John, 742 1,114
Tama City, Matthews, A., 516 780
Vail, Smutney, A., 220 200
Vinton, Biebesheimer, H. 168 312
Washington, Jugenheimer, Wm. & Co., 1,360 920
“ Zahm, H., 410 377
Waterloo, Goldstein & Rainer, 806 840
Waukon, Mauch, George, 308 270
Waverly, Foselman, Peter, 1,632 1,671
“ Tabor, S. A., 43 66
Webster City, Ramharter, A., 477 639
West Mitchell, Fey, John, 1,375 1,144
West Point, Lampe, Bernard, 159 ----
“ Troup, Fritz, ---- ----
Wilton, Miller, Philip F., 923 890
Winterset, Schroeder, Morris, 75 ----
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 136. 169,030 186,176
KANSAS.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Atchison, Young, Frank, 752 328
“ Zibold & Haegelin, 2,079 2,700
Beloit, Pupka & Eberle, 30 214
Carr Creek, Marsch, Peter, Jr., 44 78
Cawker City, Schaaf, Jos., 208 126
Chanute, Hartman Bros., 300 80
Elinwood, Hess, John, 286 576
Emporia, Macke, F. H. & Co., 400 349
Eudora, Bartusch, Robert, 101 61
Fort Scott, Schultz & Co., 2,040 2,640
Hanover, Jockers, Charles, 128 119
Highland, Weidemaier, Peter, 66 57
Independence, Hebrank & Truman, 504 253
Iola, Schindler, R., 125 120
Junction City, Cammert, Helmon, ---- 100
“ Frzaskowsky, L. W., 215 257
Kinsley, Kinsler, J., 39 44
Kirwin, Strebel, John, 100 200
Lawrence, Walruff, John, 1,96 3,491
Leavenworth, Becker & Link, 1,532 5,329
“ Brandon & Kirmeyer Brewing Co., 4,403 3,774
“ Kunz, Charles, 889 ----
“ Peipe, G., 347 274
Leroy, Schmidt, Albert, 303 209
Manhattan, Alten, Chas., 186 70
Marysville, Kalenborn, P. C., 365 483
Ogden, Weichselbaum, Theo., 494 ----
Paola, Hausman, C., 283 292
Salina, Mugler, Peter, 266 552
Topeka, Alfeman & Elsner, 143 233
“ Herboldsheimer, A. 521 281
“ Moeser, Philip, 1,463 901
Wichita, Wiegand, A., & Co., 418 450
Wyandotte, Hafner, Anna, ---- 60
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 34. 20,995 24,709
KENTUCKY.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Alexandria, Meister, August, 1,169 790
Covington, Geisbauer, L., 8,629 9,345
“ Lang, Chas., & Co., 8,708 7,986
“ Ruh & Meyer, 4,258 5,248
“ Steinrude, J. H., 7,446 8,651
Frankfort, Luscher, S., 2,265 2,829
Henderson, Reutlinger & Eisfelder, 2,061 2,500
Jefferson City, Antsch & Metzner, ---- ----
Louisville, Bauer, Elizabeth, ---- 1,759
“ Bott, Sebastian, 1,070 1,317
“ Christ, M., 2,280 2,475
“ Dierson, A. F., & Co., ---- ----
“ Fehr, Frank, 17,189 22,131
“ Gebhard, Julius, 2,383 357
“ Hartmetz, Charles, 1,925 1,885
“ Huber, Henry, 1,211 1,559
“ Knipers, G., 790 1,437
“ Laux, Peter, 1,065 1,560
“ Loeser, Adam, 2,259 2,668
“ Nadorff, Henry, 725 1,337
“ Sauffer & Brands, ---- ----
“ Schanzeubecker, J., 140 181
“ Senn, M., & Bro., 2,558 4,381
“ Steurer. J., 422 484
“ Stein, J. & Co., ---- 1,026
“ Senn & Ackerman, 2,610 7,800
“ Templeton, A., 4,734 1,890
“ Weber & Schillinger, 19,170 25,011
“ Walter, Eva, Mrs., 4,203 4,310
“ Walter & Kittinger, ---- 40
“ Zeller, John, 7,650 5,870
Maysville, Jaeger, Jacob, 162 152
Newport, Deppe & Co., 4,607 ----
“ Schussler & Butcher, 4,607 6,393
“ Wiedemann, Geo., 11,085 9,973
Owensboro, Breidenbach, A., 387 404
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 36. 127,771 143,753
LOUISIANA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
New Iberia, Erath, Aug., 579 783
New Orleans, Armbruster, Mrs. W., 537 Chartres
St., 1,934 2,422
“ Auer, Geo., 540 Tchoupitoulas 8,136 9,259
St.,
“ Bassemeier, Henry, 1010 New Levee
St., 2,367 3,055
“ Blaise, Peter, 5 Prieur St., 3,973 6,775
“ Erath, E., 282 Villeré St., 5,192 6,400
“ Lusse, Henry, 478 Chartres St., ---- 1,968
“ Soule, Mrs. S. P., 112 & 113
Peter St., 2,514 3,006
“ Sturcken, H. F., 82, 84 & 86
Marais St., 6,156 7,066
“ Weckerling, J. J., Magazine &
Delerd Sts., 5,481 6,673
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 10. 36,352 47,407
MARYLAND.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Baltimore, Bauernschmidt, Jno., 803 W. Pratt 3,573 3,778
St.,
“ Bauernschmidt, Jno., foot of
Ridgley St., 12,017 10,037
“ Bauernschmidt, G., Belair Ave., 10,761 10,923
“ Beck, Thos., & Son, W. Baltimore
St., 4,209 3,875
“ Beck, Henry, 153 East Fayette St., 113 92
“ Beck, Aug., Frederick Road, 7,706 6,935
“ Beh, Jno. G., corner 3d and
Lancaster Sts., 2,083 2,311
“ Berger, Bernard, 197 2,113
“ Berger, Jno. M., 317 S. Bond St., 188 2,987
“ Berger, John M. 360 S. Caroline
St., 188 115
“ Brehm, George, 12,656 11,836
“ Butterfield & Co., 113 Hanover
St., 2,390 1,463
“ Clauss, Jos., cor. Cross &
Covington Sts., 428 ----
“ Dukehart, Thos. M., Holiday St.,
5,925 4,750
“ Eigenbrot Henry, 28 & 30 Wilkens
St., 3,936 3,195
“ Extel, N., 360 Pa. Ave., 174 ----
“ Hecht, Miller & Co., 9,149 9,297
“ Helldorfer, S., cor., Clinton &
Lancaster Sts., 5,358 5,063
“ Hertlein, G. C., Belair Road, 1,406 1,102
“ Hœnervogt, Elizabeth, Eastern
Ave., 3,370 3,533
“ Kemper, Wm., corner 2d and
O’Donnell Sts., 2,799 2,565
“ Kohles, John, 36 S. Wolf St., 264 208
“ Miller, R., 373 Biddle St., ---- 36
“ Mueller, John, 394 Pa. Ave., 673 732
“ Mueller, Val., 48 Burke St., ---- ----
“ Muth, Louis, Belair Ave., 7,741 6,694
“ Rost, Sophia, Blair Ave., 10,009 8,864
“ Schlaffer, Franz, Belair Road, 3,701 3,640
“ Schreier, Jos., Belair Ave., 7,198 6,664
“ Schultheiss, John, Garrison’s
Lane, 2,504 1,994
“ Schultheiss & Bros., 183 ----
“ Schierlitz, Jacob, 413 W.
Baltimore St., 270 208
“ Seeger, Jacob, 1053 W. Pratt St., 10,005 7,362
“ Sommerfield & Co., 7 Calverton
Road, 6,063 5,193
“ Stab, Lina, 74 Burke St., 497 424
“ Strauss, H. S., Bro. & Bell,
Hartford Road, 10,620 12,950
“ Thau & Muhlhauser, ---- ----
“ Von der Horst, J. H., Belair Ave.,
16,298 18,309
“ Weber, Fred, Hartford Road, 3,254 2,310
“ Werner & Honig, 370 Penn. Ave., 1,135 1,258
“ Wiessuer, Jno. F., Belair Ave., 12,673 14,799
“ Wunder, Fred, cor. McDonnell and
3d Ave., Canton, 5,899 5,275
Barton, Kolberg & Co., 500 ----
Canton, Gunther & Gehl, cor. 3d and
McDonald, 3,901 6,851
“ Schneider, Fritz, 2,500 2,696
“ Trost, Jno., O’Donnell St., 4,459 3,973
Carroll P. O., Stiefel, Ed. W., 4,253 3,568
Carrollton, Knecht, John, 20 83
Cumberland, Fesemneier, C., 279 500
“ Himmler, Geo., 591 500
“ Leonard, Wm., ---- 500
“ Ritter, Paul, 665 500
“ Stucklauser, Gus., 700 500
Frederick, Hauser, Paul, 205 497
“ Lipps, J. G., 392 457
Frostburg, Mayer, John, 240 264
Hagerstown, Heimel, Justus, 172 149
“ Schuster, Robert, 150 145
“ Wagner, Wm., 236 229
“ Witzenbacher, Wm., 115 126
Lonaconing, Fredericks & Hanekamp, 581 ----
“ Honig, C., 564 500
Mt. Savage, Henckel, H., 92 114
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 63. 208,228 205,042
MASSACHUSETTS.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Bedford, Walter, Fred A., ---- ----
Boston, Boston Beer Co., 249 Second St.,
87,377 77,232
“ Burkhardt, G. F., 45,500 39,382
“ Burton Brewing Co., 29,189 24,028
“ Cook, Isaac & Co., 11,358 10,059
“ Decker, Conrad, 5,878 6,748
“ Engle, S. & Co.,[27] ---- ----
“ Habich, Edward, 30,486 30,853
“ Haffenreffer & Co., 14,480 16,327
“ Houghton, A. J. & Co., 45,736 32,474
“ Hunt, W. P., ---- ----
“ Jones, Cook & Co., 34,693 31,914
“ Kenney, James, 13,161 13,663
“ Kenney & Ballou, 9,167 9,706
“ Kenney, N., 10,600 5,707
“ Lang & King, [28]3,420 9,822
“ Parsons & Co., 8,112 [29]4,530
“ Pfaff, H. & J., 26,860 34,862
“ Roessle, John, 41,000 42,827
“ Rueter & Alley, 60,156 40,509
“ Smith & Engle, [30]3,160 19,174
“ Suffolk Brewing Co., 39,409 44,055
“ Van Nostrand & Co., 42,828 37,912
Chicopee, Chicopee Brewery, ---- ----
Fall River, Healy, Thos., Jr., 166 ----
“ Hurst, J. H., 2,228 4,625
“ Ogden, Henry, 134 130
Lawrence, Evans & Co., 2,907 3,087
“ Stanley & Co., 26,035 28,184
Newburyport, Whitmore, W. H., Jr., 5,119 ----
Pittsfield, Gimlich, White & Co., 5,699 4,371
Salem, Walter, F. A., & Co., 2,459 1,794
Springfield, Kalmbach & Geisel, 5,093 6,407
“ Shaw, Wallace, 5,813 4,405
“ Springfield Brewery, 1,069 1,511
Willimansett, Brierly, Wm., 1,543 ----
Worcester, Hines, N., 783 1,933
“ McNamara, John, 375 285
“ Webster, Esther A., 1,716 ----
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 39. 711,166 [31]663,978
[27] Leased Houghton & Co.’s Ale Brewery and commenced brewing ale,
April, 1879.
[28] Lang & King, 4 mos.
[29] Parsons & Co., 10 mos.
[30] Smith & Engle, 3 mos.
[31] The Ale Brewers enlarged their barrels during the year, from 27
to 31½ gals. If 15 per cent. is allowed for enlargement, the number of
gallons of Ale sold this year will be equal to last year’s sales.
MICHIGAN.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Adrian, Eason, Thos., & Son, 337 256
“ Fischer, Jos., 1,935 1,989
“ Lehmann, Wm., 1,523 1,462
“ Mulligan, Daniel, 897 ----
Allegan, Ellinger, Geo. S., 120 117
“ Ely, T. D., ---- ----
Alpena, Leins, Aug., 306 337
Ann Arbor, Frey, John, 2,523 2,334
“ Ruck, Frank, 1,448 1,370
Bay City, Rosa, Thos., ---- 60
“ Schram, Martin, 90 90
“ Young, Chas. E., 2,949 3,878
Big Rapids, Erickson & Hoelm, 198 ----
Blackman, Haehnle, Casper, & Co., 2,246 3,358
Charlotte, Crout & Staudacher, 750 598
Cheboygan, Heutschel, C., & Bro., 217 83
Clinton, Miller, Wm., 271 ----
Coldwater, Kappler, Geo., 508 793
“ Patsch, Louis, 865 601
Corunna, Storz, Geo., 262 ----
Detroit, Arndt, Henry, 883 1,154
“ Darmstaetter, Jacob, 412
Howard St., 1,347 1,617
“ Darmstaetter, Wm., 1,944 887
“ Dittner & Co., 4,369 7,438
“ East India Brewing Co., 630
Woodridge St., 2,723 2,226
“ Endriss, Charles, 5,218 6,616
“ Fastnacht, D., 279 ----
“ Goebel, A. & Co., 8,224 9,620
“ Grieser, Eliza, 153 238
“ Hauck, Geo. & C., 2,163 3,127
“ Johnson, E., Jr., Michigan
cor. Sixth St., 565 456
“ Kling & Co., 13,326 14,053
“ Koch, John, 3,694 4,248
“ Kuhl, Mrs. A., 882 74
“ Kurtz, J. A., 473 320
“ Lion Brewing Co., Gratiot 5,581 9,499
St.,
“ Mann, Chris., 1,441 1,341
Mann, Jacob, 5,220 5,006
“ Martz Bros., 5,632 5,985
“ McGrath, Thomas, 511 Seventh
St., 1,367 2,658
“ Michelfelder, A., 5,270 5,103
“ Miller, Henry, 1,658 308
“ Moloney, Schneider & Co., 499 924
“ Ochsenhirt French, 1,917 2,268
“ Ruoff, Aug., 4,508 4,741
“ Scheu, John, 21 66
“ Seeger, Geo., 230 134
“ Steiner, John, 2,871 3,450
“ Voigt, E. W., 213 Grand
River Ave., 17,358 17,552
“ Williams & Co., 232
Woodridge St., 4,027 3,710
Dowagiac, Horder, Vincent, 1,058 884
Eagle River, Kuvel & Bro., 888 547
East Saginaw, Darmstaetter, L., 1,979 2,090
“ Mawbray, Wm., 1,264 2,606
“ Raquet, P. & J., 2,356 2,932
“ Ziegner, F., 1,245 1,270
Escanaba, Nolden, Joseph, 401 234
Fenton, Hux, C., ---- ----
Flint, Golden, Wm., 428 437
“ Lewis, William, 409 274
Forestville, Leonhardt, C., ---- 16
Fraukenmuth, Geyer, John C., 608 702
“ Rupprecht, John, 549 577
Franklin, Rublein, Geo., ---- ----
Grand Rapids, Adrian Bros., 580 444
“ Brandt, George, 2,447 2,971
“ Frey Bros., 4,519 5,608
“ Goldsmith, Jno., 380 ----
“ Kusterer, C., 4,648 5,752
“ Tusch Bros., 444 ----
“ Veit, J. & Co., 2,032 2,478
“ Weirich, Peter, 3,286 3,136
Hancock, Schuenemann, Ph., 4,231 3,620
Highland, Bentler, J., 29 29
Hillsdale, Haas, John, 306 630
Holland, Sutton, E. F., 423 235
Houghton, Haas, Adam, Estate of 3,504 3,040
“ Hofen, Henry, 499 491
Inverness Hentschell, Chas., ---- ----
Township,
Ionia, Summ, B. & Co., 594 658
Jackson, Frey, Gottlieb, 1,146 511
“ Mills, Jas. H., 489 ----
“ Redmond, John, 204 41
Kalamazoo, Kinast, L., 1,230 1,078
“ Loescher, B., 1,298 808
“ Neumaier, Geo., 1,189 88
“ Schroder, Henry, 354 378
Lake Linden, Bosch, J. & Co., 2,124 2,919
Lansing, Foerster, Adam, 400 1,588
“ Renz, Mary, 11 ----
“ Schlotter, Geo., 94 82
“ Yeiter, F., & Co., 493 581
L’Ance, McKeman & Steinbeck, 502 ----
Lapeer, Burger, J. A., 578 807
Lexington, Walter, F. L., 742 911
Luddington, Friedeman & Stoekle, ---- 7
Manchester, Seckinger, Jos., 360 195
Marshall, Central Brewery, 162 484
“ Effinger Bros., 350 320
“ Nonemann & Lutz, 450 450
Marine City, Bauman, John, 523 497
“ Marshall, Jas., 273 250
“ Meschke & Hoch, ---- ----
Marquette, Rublein, George, 855 ----
Mt. Clemens, Bieber, Aug., 857 856
“ Miller, Wm., 301 180
Menominee, Leisen & Henes, 950 1,328
Muskegon, Muskegon Brewing Co., 2,025 3,095
Monroe, Roeder, Jacob, 817 719
“ Wahl, John, 2,300 2,576
Negaunee, Liebenstein, F. A., 375 220
“ Winter, F., 198 285
New Baltimore, Heuser, A., 246 282
Niles, Dosch, Aug., 382 455
Oxford, Findon, Wm., 120 93
Owasso, Gute Bros., 747 93
Pentwater, Fricke, C., 4,291 3,929
Pontiac, Dawson, Robt., 361 301
Port Huron, Kern, Chris., 2,332 1,843
“ Senberg, Chas., 785 778
Rogers, Bittner, Paul, 120 125
Saginaw, Rosa, John L., 386 386
“ Schemm & Schoenheit, 3,238 3,708
Saugatuck, Climpson, Samuel, 38 32
Sebewaing, Brandle, Sophia, 110 ----
St. Clair, Schlinkert, John, 496 456
“ Schroeder, John, 102 80
Sturgis, Schlegel, John, 714 410
Three Rivers, Esslinger & Sulliman, 170 ----
Traverse City, Kratockvill, F. W., 248 140
“ Smith, John, 238 217
West Bay, City, Kohler & Jordan, 530 937
“ Kolb, George, 1,884 2,228
“ Rosa, Thomas, 530 ----
Westfield, Kording, H., 18 40
Westphalia, Arens & Drostle, 34 583
Whitefield, Rublein, Geo, 855 ----
Wyandotte, Marx, Geo., 809 946
Ypsilanti, Forrester, L. Z. & Co., 2,156 2,473
“ Grob, Jacob, 190 173
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 140. 203,043 212,231
MINNESOTA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Albert Lea, Weile & Co., R., 417 453
Alexandria, Volk, Carl, 210 319
“ Wegener, R., 444 629
Arlington, Klinkers, C., 93 ----
Austin, Weisei, Jacob, 241 969
Beaver Falls, Betz, Andreas, 16 28
Belle Plaine, Schmidt, C., 235 399
Blue Earth City, Fleckenstein, Paul, 228 228
Brownsville, Fetzner, V. & J., 672 680
Canby, Schmohl, J., 67 59
Carver, Hertz, B., 348 360
Chaska, Ittis, Peter, 820 636
“ Karcher, Geo., ---- 510
“ Liverman, B., 898 844
Caledonia, Wagner, Philip, 739 ----
Cold Spring Sarge, M., ---- ----
City,
Corunna Falls, Kowitz, Ferdinand, 618 650
Crockton, Burkhard & Co., ---- ----
Duluth, Fink, Michael, 1,180 614
Fairmount, Smales, G. S., 103 ----
Faribault, Fleckenstein, G., 1,015 1,302
“ Fleckenstein, Ernst, 485 560
“ Shefield, S. A., 2,389 1,919
Fergus Falls, Brown, Chas. & Co., 100 180
“ Oehlschlager, Peter, ---- 45
Frankfort, Weiss, Geo. E., 272 273
Frazee, Carl, G., ---- 56
Glencove, Samuel, Ed., 513 618
Granger, Hasse, Henry, 536 305
Hakah, Streigel, John G., 236 140
Hastings, Busch, Fred, 780 682
“ Ficker & Dandelinger 1,190 1,148
Henderson, Enes, C., ---- ----
Hutchinson, Englehorn & Co., ---- 204
Jackson, Owens, Evan, 85 67
Jordan, Gehring, Sebastian, 1,837 1,850
“ Heiland, Fred, 1,600 1,400
Lake City, Beck, Peter, & Co., 402 387
“ Schmidt & Co., 503 829
Lanesboro, Frietschel, M., 207 ----
Lanesburg, Radly & Chalupsky, 384 691
Le Sueur, Arbes, Peter, 229 691
Litchfield, Lenhardt & Roetger, 318 334
Madelia, Brennis, P. A., 138 233
Mankato, Bierbauer, W., 1,391 1,489
“ Gassler & Co., 977 1,112
“ Ibach, Joseph, Sen., 339 420
Mantorville, Maegeli, H., 483 421
Marine, Wishman & Garner, 127 98
Mazeppa, Trausch, J., 131 238
Minneapolis, Mueller & Hendrick, 7,380 8,042
“ Orth, John, 4,892 6,665
“ Zahler & Nohrenberg, 1,735 1,966
Moorhead, Erickson, John, 379 515
New Munich, Schmidt, N., ---- 476
New Ulm, Bender, Jacob, 216 299
“ Hanenstein, Jno., 1,017 1,523
“ Holl, Aug., 35 173
“ Schell, Aug., 2,124 2,536
“ Schmuker, Jos., 209 296
Northfield, Grafmueller, A., 490 452
Oshawa, Veith, Fred A., 311 145
Owatumwa, Bion, Louis, 1,138 1,018
“ Gauser, Petro, 781 823
Perham, Schroeder, Peter, 336 307
Pine Island, Ferber, John, 100 135
Red Wing, Christ, Jacob, 1,439 1,339
“ Hartman, John, 267 167
“ Hoffman, L., 624 607
“ Remmler, A., 1,456 1,428
Reeds, Voelke, J., 379 180
Reed’s Landing, Burkhard, Samuel, 520 603
Redwood Falls, Weiss, John, 32 57
Richmond, Webber, C., 225 122
Rochester, Bang, Joseph, 140 500
“ Schuster, Henry, 1,176 1,157
Rollingstone, Vill, Otto, 378 861
Rushford, Pfeiffer, Jacob, 355 234
Rush City, Victor, Gustav, 400 595
Sauk Center, Gruber, Geo., 40 19
Shakopee, Husmann, A. T., 1,232 1,072
“ Nysson, H., 1,266 952
Sleepy Eye, Kramer, G. W., & Co., 237 366
St. Anthony, Gluck. G., 3,996 3,458
St. Charles, Mueller, F. W., 944 571
St. Cloud, Brick, John, 1,688 1,444
“ Enderle, Lorenz, 1,344 1,598
“ Thierse & Balder, 1,196 977
Stillwater, Tepass, Hermann, 955 1,191
“ Wolf, Joseph, & Co., 2,651 3,364
St. Paul, Bauholzer, Fred, 1,284 1,167
“ Bruggeman, M., 1,326 1,908
“ Drewry & Son, 641 642
“ Emmert, Fred., 2,760 2,800
“ Funk, M., 1,475 1,737
“ Hamm, Theodore, 5,770 7,980
“ Horning, Frank, 88 102
“ Koch, R., & Co., 1,869 2,265
“ Stahlman, Chris., 8,415 10,440
“ Wurm, Johanna, 210 200
“ Yoerg, Anthony, 2,225 2,791
St. Peter, Engesser, Math., 358 299
“ Stelzer, Jacob, 327 437
St. Vincent, Raywood & Lemon, ---- ----
Taylor’s Falls, Schottermuller, J., 133 140
Wabasha, Leslin, Mary, 245 198
Waconia, Zabler, Michael, 660 652
Waseca, Kraft, Simon, 831 585
“ Bierwalter, John, ---- ----
Watertown, Lüders, Fritz, 734 470
Willmar, Gilger, Wm., ---- ----
Winona, Becker, John S., 2,128 2,540
“ Bub, Peter, 2,014 2,484
Young America, Schmasse, A., & Co., 343 389
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 114. 101,916 113,529
MISSOURI.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Appleton, Ludwig, Casper, 458 378
Boonville, Gresmeier & Roechel 1,170 ----
Cape Girardeau, Hanney, Ferdinand, 558 624
“ Henniger, Fred., 364 420
“ Uhl, Casper, 757 792
Carrollton, Schomburg, H. R., 316 274
Carthage, Beainer, Jas. C., ---- ----
Chillicothe, Pierson, Peter, 597 257
Edina, Strohman, F. G., 51 109
Fredericktown, Gamma, Jacob, 440 340
Fulton, Lorenz, Edward, 332 316
Glasgow, Siebel, John, 292 ----
Hannibal, Riedel, Geo., 2,975 2,025
“ Schambacher, W. H., ---- ----
Hermann, Kropp, Hugo, 495 998
Jefferson City, Franz & Brother, 1,311 1,276
“ Wagner, Geo., & Son, 2,688 2,863
Kansas City, Kump, F. H., 8,700 8,700
“ Muehlbach, John, 2,666 3,932
Kirksville, Maloney, A. D., & Co., 28 ----
“ Sloan, Henry, 78 ----
Lexington, Hoffman, Ernst, 1,060 600
Macon City, Steinbrecher, Geo., 796 204
Maryville, Niesendorfer & Co., 909 52
Middlebrook, Seitz, Edward, 1,097 300
Moberly, Hochberger, G. F., 1,038 332
Palmyra, Hiner, A., 225 195
“ Menge, Christopher, 141 188
Perryville, Strobel, F., & Co., 465 420
Princeton, Antricht, Ferd & Co., 181 136
Rockport, Hartman, Wm., 350 200
Salt River, Amesbury & Walker, 39 31
Sedalia, Siebel & Holm, 3,692 2,731
Springfield, Dingledein, S., 936 738
St. Charles, Runge, Theo., 1,775 1,768
“ Schaeffer, E., 2,308 2,200
St. Genevieve, Rottler, Val., 1,069 700
St. Joseph, Goetz, M. K., & Co., 4,651 4,299
“ Kuechle, E. J., 3,843 3,804
“ Nunning, Henry & Son, 6,223 5,585
“ Ohnesorg & Co., 2,270 3,570
St. Louis, Anthony & Kuhn, cor. Sidney
and Buel Sts., 22,018 22,970
“ Anheuser-Busch Brewing
Association, between
Peslallozi and Crittenden, 61,584 83,160
“ Brinckwirth & Nolker, 1820
Cass Ave., 23,573 22,410
“ Cherokee Brewery, Herold &
Loebs, props., Cherokee St.,
Iowa Ave., 11,151 11,432
“ Denber, Geo., s. w. cor. 20th
and Dodier Sts., 104 164
“ Excelsior Brewing Co., C.
Koehler, president, 2818 So.
Seventh St., 22,865 23,284
“ Feuerbacher & Schlossstein,
Sidney and Eighth Sts., 22,350 22,121
“ Ferrie, Jos., & Co., 1906
Franklin Ave., 1,100 ----
“ Griesedieck, A., & Co., Buena
Vista and Shenandoah Sts., 7,904 3,519
“ Grone, H., & Co., 2211 Clark 27,532 27,207
Ave.,
“ Heidbreder, Jno. F., cor. 21st
and Dodier Sts., 7,167 8,100
“ Klausman Brewing Co., So. Main
St., Carondelet, 7,970 7,638
“ Koch & Schillinger Brewing
Co., 816 to 822 Sidney Sts., 11,319 12,500
“ Lemp, Wm. J., 2d Carondelet
Ave. and Cherokee St., 78,422 88,714
“ Milentz, Laura, 1535
Carondelet Ave., 136 175
“ Schnaider, Jos., Brewing Co.,
2,000 Chauteau Ave., 28,589 27,960
“ Spengler & Son, 3823 Broadway, 8,870 9,677
“ Stifel, Chas. G., Brewing Co.,
1911 N. Fourteenth St., 26,598 30,164
“ St. Louis Brewery Co.,
Lafayette and 2d Carondelet 15,060 10,527
Ave.,
“ Uhrig, Jos., Brewing Co., 1800
Market St., 15,604 13,346
“ Wainwright, S. & Co., 727
South Ninth St., 39,440 45,846
“ Weiss, M. & Obert, N. E. cor.
State and Lynch Sts., 10,500 11,000
“ Winkelmeyer, J., Brewing
Association, from 17th to
18th, and Market to Walnut 27,079 31,474
Sts.,
“ Young, B. F., 514 So. Second
St., 796 808
Stockton, Gast, M., ---- 16
Union, Richenmacher & Gory, 156 84
Warrenburg, Gross, Philip, 328 199
Washington, Busch, John B., 2,228 1,912
Wittenburg, Milster, C. D., ---- 318
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 72. 547,590 582,372
MONTANA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Bannack, Harby, James, 27 41
Bozeman, Spieth & Kugg, 428 332
Butte, Saile, Buol, ---- 20
“ Schmidt & Garner, 299 190
Deer Lodge, Coutaineir & Fish, 141 309
“ Fenner & Co., 310 324
Diamond City, Rampeck, H. J., 61 42
Fort Benton, Moersberger & Co., 73 58
Glendale, Gilg, Frank, 112 151
Helena, Binzel, B., ---- 49
“ Foller, August, 568 652
“ Horsky & Kuech, 889 1,003
“ Kessler, Nick, 1,026 912
Miles, Buch & Rodener, ---- 115
Missoula, Hayes, John, 116 203
Phillipsburg, Guth, Christian, 37 43
“ Kroger, Chas., 75 76
Radersburg, Dixon, Thos., 31 28
Silver Bow, Nissler, Christian, 267 510
Silver Star, Fullhart, L., ---- 74
Sun River, Rohner, John, ---- 54
Virginia City, Gilbert, Henry S., 217 330
----- -----
Number of Breweries, 22. 4,677 5,516
NEBRASKA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Beatrice, Coffin & Sonderegger, ---- 319
Columbus, Hersenbrock & Hengeler, 1,127 1,117
Colfax, Jetter & Martin, 1,037 1,069
Fairmount, Rock, C., 874 151
Falls City, Brackhalm Bros., ---- ----
“ Brackhalm & Fricke, ---- 591
Franklin, Arnold, Ernst, 106 175
Fremont, Magenan, E., 2,350 2,595
Grand Island, Boehm, George, 1,176 1,180
Hastings, Calvert, Alfred, 170 ----
Kulo, Borener, Aug., 79 82
Lincoln, Fitzgerald, J., ---- ----
Nebraska City, Reyschlag, Fred, 1,285 ----
“ Roos, A., 685 815
Niohara, Foerster, Adam, ---- 47
North Platte, Distel, Erickson & Co., 232 558
Omaha, Bacon, Albert, 233 ----
“ Baumann, Mrs. W., 2,747 3,162
“ Engler, E., 102 82
“ Krug, Fred, 11th St., 7,298 8,065
“ Metz & Bro., 5,645 7,686
Plattsmouth, Heisel & Rippel, 617 481
Red Cloud, Bernzen, J., 201 120
West Crete, Neher, N., 844 739
West Point, Wala, Jos., 278 218
Wilber, Kobes, Jno., 14 18
“ Shary, Rob’t, ---- ----
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 27. 27,100 29,270
NEVADA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Aurora, Stauhler, F., 281 388
Austin, Bauer, G. A., 324
Battle Mountain, Amfahr, John, 84 39
Belleville, Belleville Brewery, ---- 93
Carson City, Berryman, R. A., ---- ----
“ Klein, Jacob, 1,734 2,071
Elko, Bixel, Antonie, 499 355
“ Hawley & Curieux, 115
Esmerelda, Stahler, F., 281 644
Eureka, Bremenkampf, F. J., & Co., 375 495
“ Lautenschlager, C., 943 1,272
“ Mann, H., & Co., 261 993
“ Smith & Mendes, ---- 237
“ Vosberg, Henry, ---- ----
Gold Hill, Schweiss, Sylvester, 1,170 1,054
Grantsville, Koch, Wm., ---- ----
Halleck, Gruenberg, Chr., ---- ----
Hamilton, Schmidt, Casper, 129
Paradise Valley, Kirchner & Co., ---- 124
Pioche, Staler, J. W., 10 5
“ Schustrich & Klein, 195 199
Reno, Hoffmann, Wm., 648 509
Silver City, Geyer, Philip, 155 ----
Tuscarora, Iwan & Trilling, 65 138
“ Curiaux, F., 208 342
Tybo, Bohle, H., 111 146
White Pine, Mezger Bros., 96 124
Winnemucca, Fink & Hinkey, 348 472
“ Kesler, Charles, 104 132
Virginia City, Deininger, John P., 605 581
“ Franklin & Schroeder, 1,400 1,516
“ Rapp & Langan, 1,179 963
“ Reich, Louis, 786 840
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 35. 12,116 13,969
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Cold River, Fall Mountain Lager Co., 4,858 8,605
Manchester, Carney, Lynch & Co., ---- ----
Portsmouth, Eldredge Brewing Co., Marcus ---- ----
Eldredge, President, 40,181 33,031
“ Jones, Frank, 66,398 60,105
“ Portsmouth Brewing Co., 15,634 15,147
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 5. 127,071 116,888
NEW JERSEY.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Clinton, Krack, J. G., 271 1,109
East Newark, Hauck, Peter, 12,705 15,243
Egg Harbor, Schmitz, Henry, 821 919
Elizabeth, Eckert, P. J., 90 155
“ Wagner, John F., 832 953
Guttenberg, Biela & Eypper, 5,850 6,027
“ Koehler & Son, 9,177 9,851
Hamilton, Hetzel, Jacob, 1,344 1,775
Hoboken, Axtman, John, 194 160
“ Hackenberg, Franz, 149 120
Jersey City, Freund, H. C., 137 212
“ Hudson City Brewery, 13,135 11,892
“ Lembeck & Betz, 29,353 31,532
“ Marion Brewery, 3,143 4,726
“ Newman, H., 131 106
“ Simon, H. P., 216 222
Midland, Keeley, James, 707 ----
Newark, Abendschoen & Bro., 142 238
“ Ballentine, P., & Sons, 109,234 106,091
“ Ballentine & Co., 20,494 21,979
“ Feigenspan & Co., 21,366 19,074
“ Freche, Gustave L., 114 92
“ Froescher, George, 140 250
“ Griffith, John, & Co., 1,536 ----
“ Heinnickel, John, 67 144
“ Hensler, Joseph, 35,560 38,638
“ Hill & Piez, 23,032 24,172
“ Kastner, F. J., 15,349 14,637
“ Krueger, Gottfried, 28,759 29,549
“ Laderer, M., 51 93
“ Lyon, D. M., & Son, 26,560 22,994
“ Mander, Jac. 12,088 12,801
“ Morton & Bro., 20,397 18,851
“ Neitzer, Charles, 93 80
“ Neu, John, 2,969 3,403
“ Roesser, Catharina, 84 149
“ Stadelhofer, Max., ---- ----
“ Trant, F. A., 4,828 5,958
“ Trefz, Christiana, 25,380 20,809
“ Wackenhuth, F. C., 3,188 2,682
“ Weidemayer, G. W., 3,855 750
“ Ziehr, Elizabeth, ---- 248
Paterson, Graham & Co., 6,237 12,484
“ Braum, C., 409 1,588
“ Katz, Bros., 129 7,062
“ Pfannebecker, P., 48 152
“ Sprattel & Mennel, 5,768 5,027
“ Shaw & Hincliffe, 22,029 22,000
Rahway, Geyer Bros., 1,605 6,748
Raritan, Schneider, J., ---- 1,049
Trenton, Haas, F. Son’s, 480 580
“ Schloetterer, S., ---- ----
Union Hill, Bromeke, Aug., 302 177
“ Bermus, Daniel, 14,425 17,195
“ Linnewerth, L., 7,366 8,611
“ Peter, William, 8,967 7,862
“ Wegenburg, Charles, 94 102
West Hoboken, Wittig, Catharine, 1,177 543
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 57. 502,574 519,864
NEW MEXICO.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Golondrinas, Weber, Frank, 110 180
Silver City, May, John L., & Co., ---- ----
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 2. 110 180
NEW YORK.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Albany, Albany Brewing Co., 58,201 71,568
“ Amsdell Bros., 40,975 57,470
“ Beverywyck Brewing Co., ---- 25,947
“ Coleman Bros., 6,593 7,585
“ Dobler, John, 3,305 3,897
“ Farun, M. H., 305 463
“ Fulgraff, Wm., estate of, 1,415 1,183
“ Gregory, Alex., 12,504 10,495
“ Hedrick, John F., 3,407 3,766
“ Hinckel, Fred, 21,267 16,448
“ Hoerl & Frank, 1,051 732
“ Kirchner, J., 4,865 4,508
“ Long, A. S., 1,204 1,542
“ Schindler, Wm., 1,532 1,592
“ Schneider, J. G., 500 130
“ Taylor & Son, 49,512 46,001
“ Tzomaski, Julius, 39 35
“ Walker, James, 10,890 6,764
“ Weber, G., & Son, 342 258
“ Quinn & Nolan, 44,045 44,101
Allegany, Zink, W. F., 200 60
Amsterdam, Moat, Charles, 2,550 2,990
“ Pabst, Jno. F., ---- 142
Attica, Thompson, C. S., Assignee of
R. H. Farnham, ---- 1,083
Auburn, Burtis & Son, 1,600 2,770
“ Fanning, G. S., 602 918
“ Koenig, Wm., 3,534 1,993
“ Sutcliffe, Wm., 3,018 4,223
Batavia, Eagar & Co., 1,266 762
“ Millschauer, L., 867 ----
Binghamton, West, L., 1,045 1,276
“ White & Fuller, 3,000 2,688
Bleecker, Ernst, Roman, 66 ----
Breslau, Feller, John, 185 139
Buffalo, Beck, Magnus, 13,456 11,720
“ Driskel, Mrs. F., 2,836 3,183
“ Gecman & Schroeter, ---- 596
“ Gerber, Charles, 9,905 11,245
“ Haas, David, 4,428 3,262
“ Haberstroh, J. L., 4,824 4,751
“ Hinold, M., ---- 1,274
“ Jost Brewing Co., 1,949 3,768
“ Kaltenbach, F. X., 13,843 18,115
“ Karn, John, 2,664 2,760
“ Kuhn, Jacob F., 4,047 3,694
“ Lang, Gerhard, 17,825 14,030
“ Luippold, John M., 6,675 9,040
“ Moeller, August, 460 240
“ Moffat & Service, 5,255 6,426
“ Reis, George, 2,149 2,702
“ Rochevot, George, 10,070 9,305
“ Rohrer, Margaret, 219 163
“ Roos, George, 9,684 10,419
“ Schaeffer, Aleis, 7,600 9,520
“ Schanzlin, J. F., 3,440 2,834
“ Schenfele & Co., 284 ----
“ Scheu, Jacob, 8,660 8,515
“ Schneider, Philip, 2,250 1,872
“ Schuesler, John, 8,005 9,191
“ Scobell & Schub, 1,503 1,610
“ Shoemaker, E. D., 6,100 5,106
“ Sloan, W. W., 2,223 2,554
“ Voetsch, Wm., 2,481 4,150
“ Weyand, Christian, 7,643 10,483
“ Ziegele, Albert, 18,375 24,795
Brooklyn, Burger, Joseph, corner Mese
and Leonard Sts., 8,215 8,400
“ Dahlbender & Greener, 174 Ewen
St., 4,066 4,857
“ Devell, J. V., 16 Osmond Place,
21 87
“ Deveuthal, Henry, 30 Webster
Place, 108 110
“ Epping, Leonard, 32 George St., 20,300 20,800
“ Fallert, Jos., 66 Meserole St., ---- 815
“ Foster, H. C., Jr., 33 600 ----
Cranberry St.,
“ Gluck & Scharmann, 371 Pulaski 24,000 25,520
“ Goetz, Christ’n, Franklin
Ave., Bergen and Dean Sts., 17,960 20,990
“ Grass & Co., 435 First St., 2,574 2,838
“ Guenther, Wm., 436 So. Fifth 210 250
St.,
“ Herrmann, Henry, 14 North 80 92
Ninth St.,
“ Howard & Fuller, Bridge and
Plymouth Sts., 16,825 15,494
“ Huber, Otto, Meserole St. and
Bushwick Ave., 36,911 35,356
“ Immen, Henry, 46 Commercial 150 185
St.,
“ Jones, J. J., 311 Bremen St., 10,644 14,225
“ Kiefer, H., 140 Scholes St., 14,000 19,534
“ Kolb, Charles, Witherspoon St., 8,175 6,000
“ Leavy & Britton Brewing Co.,
Jay and Front Sts., 22,874 20,000
“ Liebmann’s Sons, Prospect and
Bremen Sts., 52,469 57,327
“ Lipsius, Claus, 477 Bushwick
Ave., 14,744 20,775
“ Long Island Brewing Co., 81
Third Ave., 30,029 27,142
“ Malcom, George, cor. Skillman
St., and Flushing Ave., 15,556 16,882
“ Mark, John G., 26 Bremen St., 341 242
“ Marquardt Bros., 403 Leonard
St., 50 70
“ Marquardt, L., 2 Meserole St., 111 106
“ Maupai, Wm., 168 Ewen St., 5,336 6,412
“ Meninger, John, 162 Cook St., ---- 6
“ McGoldrich, Daniel, 55
Atlantic St., 48 48
“ Meltzer Bros., Suydam and
Myrtle Sts., 7,000 8,000
“ Obermeyer & Liebmann, 71
Bermen St., 22,242 22,238
“ Ochs & Lehnert, Bushwick Ave.
and Scholes St., 3,060 5,654
“ Raber, John, 60 Scholes St., 6,371 11,578
“ Raether, Wm., 1089 Myrtle St., 139 151
“ Schmidt, L., 36 Broadway, 215 400
“ Seidler, A., 51st St., between
3rd and 4th Aves., ---- 65
“ Seitz’s, N. Son, Manjer St., 19,843 25,000
“ Streeter & Denison, 84 N.
Second St., 13,455 14,238
“ Ulmer, Wm., cor. Beaver and
Belvidere Sts., 27,000 22,644
“ Urban & Abbott, Bushwick Ave.
18,697 23,048
“ Weber & Amthor, 182 Graham
Ave., 604 2,320
“ Welz, John, Myrtle Ave. cor.
Wyckoff Ave., 6,982 9,744
“ Williamsburg Brewing Co., Wm.
Brown, pres’t. Humboldt and
Meserole St., 40,284 50,287
“ Witte, F. W., 100 Luynier St., 204 200
Canaan, Losty, Patrick, 416 304
Canajoharie, Bierbauer, Louis, 1,346 1,399
Canandaigua, McKechnie, J. & A., 18,500 15,547
Cape Vincent, Scobell, R. S., 691 422
Carthage, Clifford, C., 678 829
Clarkstown, Schmersahl. J. G. C., 1,424 569
Clifton, (S. I.) Mayer & Bachmann, 44,535 37,898
Colden, Miller, Mrs. B., 1,144 401
College Point, Ochs, Joseph, 18,990 18,717
(L. I.)
Concord, Lutz, Joseph, 168 179
Constableville, Seigel, Jos., 208 432
Corning, Haischer, Fred, 840 1,646
Cuba, Agate, Edward, 1,766 1,730
Dansville, Klink, John, 450 435
Dobb’s Ferry, Biegen, Peter M., 16,036 16,664
Dunkirk, Dotterweich, George, 2,760 3,000
“ Finck, Henry, 1,976 2,554
“ Smith, Henry, ---- 169
East New York, Atlantic Brewery, 112 ----
East Leicht, Fred, 3,700 3,360
Williamsburg,
Eden, Schweikhart, Daniel, 403 640
Elmira, Arnold, Kolb & Co., 1,500 ----
“ Briggs, F., & Co., 7,534 7,142
“ Gerber, Chas. Jr., ---- ----
“ Mander, Adam, 1,682 1,172
Esopus, Staudacher, Fred, ---- 1,728
Evans’ Mills, Clifford, C., 900 832
Fishkill, Walshe, J. V., 973 765
Fort Edward, Durkee & Co., 6,250 5,321
Fort Plain, Beck, John, 570 595
Fremont, Kille, Joseph, 117 152
“ Schneider, J., ---- 74
Geddes, Mantel, Jacob, 1,098 816
Glens’ Falls, Coney & Sheldon, 2,928 2,581
Gowanda, Fischer & Garber, ---- 688
Great Valley, Forge, L., Jr., ---- 660
Half Moon, Wenner. R., 1 029 962
Hall’s Corners, Stokel, Wesley, 410 425
Hamburg, Fink, Frank J., 975 431
Herkimer, Goldsmith, Anna M., 90 236
Hicksville, Becker, Wm., 223 250
Hornellsville, Leach & Kennedy, 952 1,247
“ Sauter, John, 796 363
Hudson, Evans, C. H., 26,441 23,606
“ Waterbury, E., 1,265 1,405
Ilion, Speddin, S., 2,362 2,353
Jamestown, Smith Charles, 1,160 1,610
Kingston, Barmann, Peter, ---- 457
“ Cummings, Catherine, 222 139
“ Dressell & Co., 2,767 2,523
“ Scheick, C., ---- 67
“ Schwalbach, Eliz., 1,485 ----
“ Stephan, G. F., 1,573 ----
“ Thiele, Valentine, ---- ----
Lancaster, Demaugeot, John, 3,410 3,115
“ Hilbert, Sylvester, 465 418
“ Soemann, Chas. J., 816 1,180
Langford, Kekrer, Henry, 482 374
Lansingburg, Bolton, Samuel & Sons, 9,548 11,318
Le Roy, Linxwilder, J. D., 154 68
“ Sellinger, Lorenz, 483 477
Little Falls, Beattie, W., & J., 993 912
“ Gerhard, N., 225 ----
Lockport, Dumville, Joseph, 948 1,320
“ Ulrich, Anton, 3,292 4,240
Lowville, Siegel, John, 613 400
“ Siegel, Joseph, 636 ----
Lyons, Brock, Geo., & Co., 1,614 1,748
Mattawan, Walsh, J. W., 1,000 884
Medina, Remde, W., 420 406
Middleton, Cohalan, T., 1,132 623
“ Herbert, Geo. Ludwig, 150 ----
Morrisania, Diehl, Catherine, 1,211 ----
“ Ebling, P. & W., 32,438 33,471
“ Eichler, John, 36,356 42,701
“ Haffen, J. & M. J., 13,689 12,505
“ Hupfel’s, A. Sons, 15,020 14,893
“ Kuntz, J. & L. F., 26,810 29,596
“ Rivinius, Chas., 17,159 29,176
“ Zeltner, Henry, 13,138 10,883
Mt. Morris, White, J. E. & Bro., 1,058 1,000
New Bremen, Zimmerman, John, 498 446
Newburgh, Beveridge, T., & Co., 15,341 15,371
“ Leicht Bros., ---- 179
New Rochelle, Jones, David, 11,736 11,140
New York City, Ahles, Jacob, 155 East 54th
St., 10,581 12,578
“ Barry & Bro., 319 East 40th 161 171
St.,
“ Baur & Betz, 140 East 58th St., 22,267 28,186
“ Beadleston & Woerz, 295 West
10th St., 78,037 78,093
“ Bender, R. & W., 169 Spring
St., 67 86
“ Bentle, Chas., 76th St., bet.
Ave. A and 1st Ave., 154 115
“ Bernheimer & Schmid, 9th Ave.,
107th and 108th Sts., 51,826 56,878
“ Betz, John F., 353 West 44th 34,129
St., 28,961
“ Betz, John J., 9th Ave. and
60th St., 4,725 5,833
“ Brecher, Philip, 437 Fifth St., 60 92
“ Clausen & Price, 11th Ave. and
59th St., 56,786 69,271
“ Clausen, H. & Son, 309 East
47th St., 89,039 89,992
“ De La Vergne & Burr, 225 West
18th St., 28,393, 42,037
“ Doelger, Joseph, 227 East 54th
St., 19,432 20,100
“ Doelger, Peter, East 55th St.,
bet. Ave. A and First Ave., 56,215 80,000
“ Doemich & Schnell, 291 Broome
St., 92 99
“ Doerrbecker, J. H., 188
William St., 730 589
“ Dunton, W. R., 84 Cherry St., 3,922 3,447
“ Eckert & Winter, 218 East 55th
St., 43,322 42,866
“ Ehret, Geo., 92d St., bet. 2d
and 3d Aves., 159,103 180,152
“ Elias & Betz, 403 East 54th
St., 46,109 45,286
“ Englehardt, Jacob, 537 West
54th St., 42 48
“ Esselborn, Broadway and 50th
St., 232 370
“ Evers, H., 49 Monroe St., 370 338
“ Ferris, H. & Sons, 257 Tenth
Ave., 20,621 23,462
“ Feyh, Adrian, 266 William St., 1,746 1,805
“ Finck, A. & Son, 326 West 39th
St., 25,242 30,782
“ Flanagan & Wallace, 450 West
26th St., 82,567 84,825
“ Haddock & Langdon, 414 East
14th St., 21,509 23,371
“ Hawkins, C. P., 345 West 41st
St., 5,654 6,231
“ Hoertel, G. C., 134 Elm St., 228 296
“ Hoffman, Jacob, 212 East 55th
St., 47,042 44,648
“ Hupfel’s, A., Sons, 229 East
38th St., 22,309 22,697
“ Jones, David, 638 Sixth St., 34,297 39,551
“ Kirk, William, 15 Downing St., 7,049 8,265
“ Kleinschroth, Fred’k, 89
Sheriff St., 200 287
“ Koch, Andrew, 455 First St., 301 431
“ Koehler, Hermann, 341 East
29th St., 23,374 21,196
“ Kress, John, 211 East 54th St., 39,448 40,015
“ Kerr & Smith, 135 West 18th
St., ---- ----
“ Lincke, G., 124 Forsyth St., 94 67
“ Loehr, Henry, 428 West 55th
St., 10 100
“ Loewer, Val., 529 West 41st
St., 1,968 2,872
“ Lyman, T. C. & Co., 532 West
33d St., 41,528 42,491
“ McKnight, Mrs. S. M., 159
Sullivan St., 4,796 613
“ Miles, W. A. & Co., 59
Chrystie St., 13,921 13,003
“ Morse, Michael, 225 East 21st
St., 80 90
“ Munch, F., 143 West 30th St., 27 27
“ Neuman, F. A., 233 East 47th 20,257 23,500
St.,
“ Opperman & Muller, 336 East
46th St., 21,020 20,693
“ O’Reilly, Skelly & Fogarty,
409 West 14th St., 28,496 35,250
“ Otto, F., 58 East 4th St., 47 32
“ Rehberger, V. 101 Broome St., 99 99
“ Ringler, Geo., & Co., 92d St.,
bet. Second and Third Aves., 57,984 65,658
“ Rottman. J. F., 315 West 47th 14,680 13,841
St.,
“ Ruppert, Jacob, 1639 Third
Ave., 101,058
105,713
“ Schaefer, F. & M., Brewing
Co., 4th Ave, bet. 50th & 51st 50,842 53,565
Sts.,
“ Schaefer, Philip, 340 West
57th St., 23,022 22,489
“ Schmidt & Koehne, 163 East
59th St., 19,066 19,714
“ Schufele, John, 541 First Ave., ---- 37
“ Schwaner & Amend, 514 West
57th St., 14,159 12,533
“ Seitz, Chas., 240 West 28th 6,443 13,187
St.,
“ Shook & Everard, 675
Washington St., 45,171 50,005
“ Smith, McPherson & Donald, 242
West 18th St., 42,316 27,131
“ Sorg, Geo., 647 11th Ave., 21 150
“ Spoehrer, H., 75 Norfolk St., 95 119
“ Springmeyer, E., 106 East 88th
St., 158 172
“ Stein, Conrad, 528 West 57th
St., 50,642 50,145
“ Stengel, F., 48 Ludlow St., 150 169
“ Stevenson, David, Jr., 503
West 39th St., 13,581 25,938
“ Tracy & Russell, 61 to 71
Greenwich Ave., 40,296 33,969
“ Wallace, James, 70 Madison St., 13,412 20,676
“ Weiland, O., 212 West 30th St., 232 319
“ Werner, Adam, 526 East 12th 48 54
St.,
“ Werner, Geo., 344 East 105th 41 36
St.,
“ Wernz, Jacob, 50 Norfolk St. 50 49
“ Wheatcroft & Rintoul, 87th
St., and Fourth Ave., 5,722 7,840
“ Yuengling & Co., 10th Avs. and
128th St., 47,890 58,316
“ Yuengling & Co., 4th Ave. and
128th St., 27,269 29,390
Norwich, Scott, M. A., 1,308 1,302
Nunda, Boulton, Geo. E., 881 789
Ogdensburgh, Arnold, J. H., 2,391 2,344
Olean, Dotterneich, Chas., 2,653 2,464
Oriskany Falls, Smith, E., 3,917 4,061
Oswego, Brosemer, Lewis, 4,668 4,428
“ Millot, J. B., 2,509 2,312
“ Oswego German Brewing Co., ---- 150
Owego, Burrows, Caroline, ---- 69
Palmyra, Downing Bros., 1,362 ----
Penn Yan, Ainsworth, Oliver, 118 321
Peekskill, McCord, Robt., 448 ----
“ Meyer & Amott, ---- 261
Perkinsville, Didas, N. & Co., 344 181
Plattsburg, Woerner & Parker, ---- ----
Poughkeepsie, Biegel, Leonard, 845 556
“ Frank’s, V. Sons, 4,869 4,473
“ Gass, John, 496 435
“ Gilman, Fred’k, 260 200
“ Klein, M., 216 2,753
“ Vasser, M. & Co., 12,261 9,511
Ridgewood, Marquardt, Jacob, 10,733 9,895
Rochester, Baetzel, J. G. & Bro., 1,161 2,226
“ Bartholomay Brewing Co.,
George Arnoldt, Sec’y, 42,921 61,824
“ Enright, Patrick, 3,243 3,333
“ Genesee Brewing Co., ---- 9,579
“ Hathaway & Gordon, 9,795 9,504
“ Marburger & Spies, 2,439 2,805
“ Meyers & Loebs, 880 1,195
“ Miller, Fred’k, 5,220 5,805
“ Nunn, Joseph, 789 742
“ Rochester Ale Co., G. W.
Archer, Pres’t., 929 ----
“ Rochester Brew’g Co., G.
Mannel, Pres’t, 32,693 43,000
“ Warren, E. K., 6,290 6,546
“ Weinmann, Margaret, 132 128
“ Yaman & Nase, 416 384
“ Zimmermann, Geo., 370 235
Rome, Kelly & Gaheen, 2,471 2,333
“ Smith, Julius, 493 403
“ Evans, Edward, 1,650 3,050
Saratoga Springs, Eheman, George, 245 203
Saugerties, Loerzel, M., 270 317
Schenectady, Dickson, Virginia, 327 156
“ Engle, Peter, 1,710 1,420
“ Meyers, Jos. S., 2,067 2,025
Seneca Falls, Weiss Bros., 150 93
Sheldon, Battendorf, Thos., 216 264
Southfield, Kaltenmeir, Jos., 495 425
Stapleton,(S.I.,) Bechtel, Ceo., 44,535 45,000
“ Bischoff, Chas., 10,317 10,311
“ Eckstein, Munroe, 13,495 13,402
“ Korner, Gotlieb, 68 ----
“ Menken, Fred., 60 80
“ Ruebsam & Horrman, 39,500 26,360
Strykersville, Glaser, Frank, 880 633
Suspension Hager, Theo., 975 1,158
Bridge,
Syracuse, Ackerman & Stuben, 2,306 2,485
“ Becker, Jacob, ---- 61
“ Greenway Brewing Co., 43,695 43,058
“ Haberle & Son, 6,080 4,607
“ Kearney, Wm., 9,072 9,689
“ Pfohl, Jacob, 1,186 1,291
“ Zett, Xavier & Son., 1,230 1,764
Tonawanda, Zent, George, 3,520 3,140
Troy, Conners, P., 1,934 2,012
“ Daly & Stanton, 18,854 16,136
“ Fitzgerald Bros., 26,409 24,649
“ Gaffigan, Julia, 50 58
“ Isengart & Voigt, 3,875 3,050
“ Kennedy & Murphy, 27,841 34,288
“ Potter, W. H., 9,206 9,221
“ Quandt, A. & A., 665 1,825
“ Ruscher, A. L, 3,325 2,727
“ Stoll, Jacob F., 3,450 3,875
Utica, Bierbauer, Chas., 880 392
“ Gulf Brewery, 7,473 6,918
“ Hutton, Chas., 2,064 2,393
“ Myers, Jno. & Co., 7,912 8,331
“ Ralph, Geo., Jr., & Co., 6,001 6,035
Watertown, Kellogg, Alonzo, 600 ----
“ Seibert, Peter, 571 ----
Watervliet, Weinbender, A., 449 384
Watervllle, Peck, E. S., 1,299 480
Wawarsing, Kuhlmann, John, 1,174 1,062
Weedsport, Brewster & Becker, 4,379 4,155
Westfield, Rorig, A., 62 77
Westmoreland, Brockett, J. A., 822 463
West Seneca, Messner, Mrs. A., 1,056 1,150
West Troy, Reilly & McGrath, 5,644 5,124
Williamsville, Batt, J. & Co. 2,715 3,108
Yonkers, Krafft, Chas., 31 ----
“ Underhill’s, E., Sons, 9,906 8,840
--------- ---------
Number of Breweries, 365. 3,556,678 3,980,716
NORTH CAROLINA.
Fayetteville, Lancashire J., W., ---- 4
OHIO.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Akron, Burkhardt, Wm., 1,840 1,855
“ Horix, F., 2,275 2,312
Alliance, Knam, Floriva, 408 484
Amherst, Braun, Wm., 429 471
Archbold, Walder, A., 48 576
Arnwell, Rich, Peter, 1,313 1,091
Bryan, Hahn, Jacob, 1,400 1,800
Bucyrus, Donnenworth & Bro., 2,470 2,303
Canal Dover, Bernhardt, F., 994 270
Canal Fulton, Rusch, Christian, 796 660
Canton, Balser, Louisa, 287 429
“ Giessen, Otto, 2,774 2,985
“ Knobloch & Hermann, 1,880 2,340
Celina, Ott, A., 919 721
Chagrin Falls, Goodwin, A. A., 18 33
Chasetown, Gines, N., 347 ----
Chillicothe, Knecht & Muehling, 2,331 2,833
“ Wissler, R., 2,070 2,037
Circleville, Kruemmel & Hoover, 1,255 1,308
Cincinnati, Bruckmann, John C., Ludlow
Ave., 5,347 6,003
“ Darusmont, M., 184 Hamilton
Road, 7,222 ----
“ Foss & Schneider, 259 Freeman
St., 17,871 28,060
“ Gambrinus Stock Co., (C. Boss,
Pres’t,) cor. Sycamore and
Abrigal Sts., 29,995 33,350
“ Hauck, John, 1 to 39 Dayton
St., 32,457 34,458
“ Herancourt, G. M., Harrison
Ave., 24,574 26,100
“ Kauffmann, John, 598 to 606
Vine St., 41,357 43,228
“ Kinsinger, C., assignee for
Klotter’s Sons, Brown St., 8,824 12,394
“ Lackmann, Herman, 443 and
445 W. 6th St., 17,622 20,272
“ Moerlein, Chris., 712 Elm St., 98,191 93,337
“ Mueller, M., 652 to 658 Main 7,425 6,471
St.,
“ Niehaus & Klinckhammer, cor.
13th and Race Sts., 10,607 18,407
“ Schaller & Gerke, cor. Plum
St.
and Canal, 39,276 39,723
“ Schmidt & Bro., 45 McMicken
Ave., 8,014 11,165
“ Sohn, J. G. & Co., 330
McMicken Ave., 18,986 20,015
“ Walker, J. & Co., 385 to 393
Sycamore St., 5,152 4,318
“ Weber, George, 284 McMicken
Ave., 57,086 16,709
“ Weyand & Jung, 771 Freeman
St., 25,163 31,121
“ Windisch, C., Muhlhauser &
Bro., Miami Canal, bet.
Wade and Liberty Sts., 66,794 62,157
Cleveland, Aenis & Fenelich, 557 Columbus
St., 4,380 4,806
“ Allen A. L., 127 Vermont St., 793 20
“ Baehr, Mrs. M., 225 Pearl St., 4,331 4,072
“ Beltz & Mueller, 59 Cyprus 3 41
St.,
“ Bishop, J. A., 371 Broadway, 1,640 1,193
“ Fovargue, D., 30 to 36 Irving 2,543 2,778
St.,
“ Gehring, C. E., 19 Brainard 15,783 19,500
St.,
“ Grabel, P., 529 Columbus St., 793 988
“ Griebel, Mrs. M., 52 Columbus
St., 793 1,003
“ Haley, J. P., cor. Seneca and
Canal Sts., 2,728 2,405
“ Hoffman Henry, 155 Walton St., 2,118 2,594
“ Hodge, Clark R., 7 Briggs St., 2,131 1,107
“ Hughes, J. M., 15 West St., 10,789 7,509
“ Koestle, Mrs. J., 38 Freeman
St., 2,363 1,592
“ Leisy, Isaac & Co., 135 Veger
St., 22,855 20,042
“ Lloyd & Keyes, 19 St. Clair 3,629 2,781
St.,
“ Mack, J. M., 239 Broadway, 581 470
“ Mall, Jacob, 9 Davenport St., 6,510 5,868
“ Mueller, Rudolph, 483 Pearl 2,529 2,659
St.,
“ Muth & Son, 10 Burckley St., 4,439 4,554
“ Opperman, A. W., cor. Columbus
Wiley Sts., 5,455 5,091
“ Schlather, L., cor. York and
Carroll Sts., 23,087 27,298
“ Schmidt & Hoffman, Ansell
Ave., 7,616 7,736
“ Schauerman, L., 39 Broadway, 6,191 3,875
“ Schneider, C., 2 Ash St., 3,916 4,042
“ Schneider, Wm. & Co., ---- ----
“ Stoppel, Joseph, cor. Ohio and
Canal Sts., 6,675 5,538
“ Strieberger, Jacob, cor.
Seneca and Canal Sts., 2,728 ----
“ Stumpf, M., Lake St., 845 290
Columbus, Biehl, Henry & Co., cor. Front
and Schiller Sts., 2,588 2,924
“ Born & Co., 449 South Front
St., 6,905 12,706
“ Hoster, L., Sons & Co., 371
So. Front St., 15,268 18,520
“ Say, Charles,
“ Say, Joseph, 50 East Third 48 40
Ave.,
“ Schlee, N., 667 South Front 7,180 8,176
St.,
“ Schlegel, Geo. & Bro., 404 So.
Front St., 2,572 ----
Crestline, Westnitzer, B., ---- 60
Dayton, Buchenen, A. & F., 45 Broome ---- 443
St.,
“ Bergman & Tettman, 22 43
“ Braum, Anton, 1st and Beckel
Sts., 1,484 1,460
“ Euchenhoefer, F., 3495 Third
St., 2,010 1,694
“ Hecker, George, 751 Van Cleve
St., 124 115
“ Poock & Senbert, ---- 128
“ Schwind, Mrs. Agnes, 345 So.
Main St., 820 632
“ Schwind, C., River Side, 6,150 5,977
“ Schimmel, M., Wayne St., 2,313 3,351
“ Stickle, Jacob, Warren St., 4,037 3,960
“ Wilke & Saubert, ---- ----
Defiance, Bauer & Co., 2,450 2,525
Delaware, Anthoni, F., 1,523 1,578
“ Wittlinger, C. H., 138 263
Delphos, Delphos Brewery, 2,280 3,598
Eaton, Fastnacht & Rau, 593 421
Elyria, Plocher, Andrew, 28 115
Franklin, Katlein & Co., 144 113
Fremont, Fremont Brewing Co., 2,939 2,999
Gallipolis, Hankel, F., 381 343
Greenville, Wagner, J., Assignee, 1,078 1,208
Hamilton, Engert, Casper, 2,729 3,382
“ Schwab, P. & Co., 13,891 11,524
Harrison, Schneider, J. & Bro., 933 994
Ironton, Ebert, Leo, 3,136 2,742
“ Mayer Jacob, 540 494
Jackson Township, Kropf, Christian, 758 497
Kenton, Kayser, Anton, 190 180
“ Ruffer, John, 880 757
Laetonia, Haller, B. F., & Bro., 227 ----
Lancaster, Becker & Co., 2,813 3,127
Lawrence, Homig & Schneider, 1,029 ----
Lima, Duvel, Chas., 960 1,029
“ Zimmermann Bros., 252 402
London, Weber, Peter, 625 ----
Louisville, Dilger & Menegay, 2,018 1,855
Mansfield, Frank & Weber, 1,601 1,128
“ Reiman & Aberle, 2,376 2,568
Marietta, Shneider, John, 1,844 1,719
Marysville, Schlegel, Paul, 130 160
Massillon, Baummerlin. L., 1,029 472
“ Halbysan, Emma, 1,747 1,625
McConnellsville, Burckhalter & Reed, ---- 109
Miamisburg, Nuss, Wm., 1,174 949
Middleburg, Davis, E., & Son, 1,228 393
Middletown, Sebald, W., & L., 4,790 5,866
Milan, Herb, Anton, 46 25
Minster, Lange, Frank, 1,790 2,144
Monroeville, Rapp, U., & Co., 858 1,808
Morrow, Scheer, Thompson & Co., 1,961 1,433
Napoleon, Roessing, F., 838 955
Newark, Bentlitch Bros., & Eichhorn, 281 285
“ Kassenbom, Chas., 1,171 787
“ Rickrich, Philip, 303 265
New Bremen, Meyer & Schwers, 320 321
New Philadelphia, Hasenbrock, M., & Seibold, 1,727 1,530
New Richmond, Baumann, Chas., 307 ----
New Springfield, Seeger, John, 66 36
N. Robinson, Gerhard, Jacob, 212 146
P. O.,
Norwalk, Fletcher & Ott, 1,842 2,023
“ Lais, Anthony, 1,064 940
Painesville, Carfield & Warner, 560 ----
Perry Township, Sommers, J., & Co., 1,488 ----
Piqua, Butcher & Mittler, 1,200 1,254
“ Keifer, L., 842 863
“ Schneyer, J. L., 677 564
Polk, Roth, Daniel, ---- 867
Pomeroy, Wildermuth, G., 2,609 2,401
Portsmouth, Kleffner & Mair, ---- 1,548
Reading, Kroger, J. B., & Co., 636 946
Rome, Kropf, C., & Co., 910 570
Roscoe, Mayer, Conrad, 311 228
Salem, Muff, Wm., 300 450
Sandusky, Anthony & Ilg., 4,998 5,070
“ Bender, Lena, 5,735 5,990
“ Kuebler, J., & Co., 11,302 11,611
Sidney, Wagner, John, 4,126 3,752
Springfield, Engert & Dinkel, 6,609 7,160
“ Vorce & Blee, 5,561 2,565
Steubenville, Butte, J., Jr., 1,138 696
“ Basler, J., Jr., 389 611
Strasburg, Seikel, Jacob, 146 132
Tiffin, Hubach, H., 737 2,816
“ Mueller, C., 5,294 4,337
Toledo, Findlay & Zahm, 24,061 34,208
“ Crasser & Brand, 21,691 18,940
“ Jacobs, Coughlin & Co., 14,294 15,471
“ Toledo Brewing Co., 16,255 17,910
Troy, Henne, Joseph, 1,895 2,046
Tuscarora, Heim, Louis, 73 316
Upper Sandusky, Allstaeller & Bechler, 1,719 1,662
Wapakoneta, Kotter, C., & Bro., 1,049 1,149
“ Schuman Bros., 278 260
Warren, Clement, Geo., Jr., 719 765
Waynesburgh, Grubel, C., 480 600
Willoughby, White, O. F., ---- 5
Williamsburgh, Bools, John, 21 37
Winesburg, Wiegand, L., 189 77
Woodville, Keil, Jonas, 283 289
“ Lang, M., 90 121
Wooster, Mongey & Graber, 2,311 2,204
Xenia, Farrel & Co., Assignees, 1,441 1,585
Youngstown, Knott & Klas, 703 1,043
“ Seeger, Mat, 2,576 2,624
“ Smith, John’s Sons, 3,299 3,261
Zanesville, Achauer, C. F., 84 97
“ Bohn, Sebastian, 79 117
“ Brenner, J. A., & Co., 1,194 1,042
“ Fisher Bros., 2,123 2,373
“ Merkle Bros., 2,813 2,791
Zoar, Zoar Society, 362 315
------- ------
Number of Breweries, 189. 968,332 965,480
OREGON.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Albany, Bellanger, E., 267 345
“ Keifer, Charles, 180 135
Astoria, Meyer, M., 866 801
“ Hahn, John, 440 483
Baker City, Rust, Henry, 158 196
“ Kastner, N., 275 249
Brownsville, Cloner, B., ---- ----
Canyon City, Sels, F. C., 126 126
Canyonville, Stenger, L., 27 33
Corvallis, Hughes, Henry, 183 132
Coquette City, Mehl, G., 43 38
Eugene City, Miller, M., 114 105
Gardner, Varrelman, F., 21 21
Gervais, Glaser & Kirk, ---- 129
Jacksonville, Schutz, Val, 138 171
“ Wetterer, Joseph, 150 159
Junction City, Braun & Seeger, ---- ----
Marshfield, Reichert, Wm., 280 303
McMinnsville, Ahrens, Anton, ---- ----
“ Bachman, W. R., ---- ----
Oakland, Robinson, A. D., 25 ----
“ McGregor & Freyer, 25 50
Oregon City, Rehfuss, H., 1,412 1,269
Pendleton, Stang, Adam, 140 127
“ Lang, Adolph & Co., ---- ----
Portland, Feuer, L., 181 1,089
“ Molson & Sons, ---- 181
“ U. S. Brewing Co., 1,506 1,557
“ Weinhard, Henry, 5,280 6,212
Roseburgh, Rast, John, 257 258
“ Kreutscher, Th. F., ---- ----
Salem, Adolph S., & Co., 478 545
“ Westacott, L, 258 431
“ Westacott & Son, ---- ----
Scottsburgh, Rumelhort, L. H., ---- ----
St. Paul, Ahrens, A., 94 83
The Dalles, Buechler, Aug., 438 881
Union, Washburn, S. N., & Co., ---- ----
Wilderville, Closner, David, ---- 17
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 39. 13,362 16,159
PENNSYLVANIA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Allegheny City, Booth, Thomas, 10,427 8,612
“ Dippel, Henry, 634 394
“ Eberhardt & Ober, 11,905 11,480
“ Herdt, Mrs. D., 824 947
“ Lion Brewing Co., 8,678 11,221
“ Lutz, D. & Son, 13,414 12,990
“ Mueller, John M., 5,046 6,272
“ Ober, Frank L., 4,541 6,073
“ Straub, J. N., & C., 10,008 9,387
Allentown, Benedict, Nuding, 2,706 2,675
“ Daenfer, Jacob, ----- 597
“ Kern, Leopold, 990 326
“ Lieberman & Co., 2,706 1,931
Altoona, Ensbrenner, Geo., 355 474
“ Haid, Chas., 316 342
“ Hoelle, Martin, 1,297 1,007
“ Klemert, Gustav, 516 531
“ Stehle, John B., 524 358
“ Wahl, Christ, 336 298
Beaver Falls, Anderton, James, 789 756
“ Holmes & Timmins, ---- ----
“ Volk, John, 786 826
Bellefonte, Haas, Louis, 504 618
Bennett’s Baeurlein, C., Bro. & Co., 4,715 5,481
Station,
“ Gast & Bro., 1,236 946
“ Hoehl, Henry, 366 319
Benzinger, Straub, Peter, 656 475
Bethlehem, Uhl, Mathias, 1,483 971
Blossburg, Plummer, Elijah, 49 53
Braddock’s, Schulz, G., 159 201
“ Schafer, N., 397 340
Bridgewater, Weisgerber, Conrad, 317 283
Brookville, Allgeier, M., 464 449
“ Christ, S. C., 319 367
Cambria, Goenner, Jacob, 573 592
Carbondale, Nealon, John, 320 1,096
Carlisle, Faber, C. C., 51 96
“ Krause, E. J., 723 293
Carrollton, Blum, Henry, 287 229
“ Eger, F. & C., 224 184
Catasauqua, Kostenbader, H., 1,598 1,660
“ Stockberger, M. J., 510 720
Centerville, Dluzer, John, ---- ----
Chambersburg, Kurtz, L. B., 465 451
“ Klenzing, H. A., ---- 167
“ Ludwig, Charles 1,033 766
“ Richter, Henry, 229 170
Chartiers, Schmelz, Henry, 276 301
Clarion, Hartle, George, 101 79
“ Sandt, H. J., 521 418
Clearfield, Leipoldt, C., 91 110
“ Sell, Thomas, ---- ----
Coal Township, Markle, M., 630 1,126
Columbia, Brink, A. H., & Co., 543 671
“ Desch, J., 1,625 2,200
Condersport, Zimmerman, C., ---- ----
Conemaugh, Kost, Lawrence, 434 538
“ Lambert & Kress, 2,120 3,083
Corry, Morris, Hiram, 491 380
“ Spreter, Gustave, 1,512 1,260
Danville, Fraudenberger, G., & Co., 1,012 1,073
“ Gerstner, Mrs. M. A., 466 238
Easton, Borman & Kuebler, 6,179 ----
“ Seitz Bros., 3,195 2,957
“ Veile, Xavier, 1,988 1,527
East Mauch Chunk, Gerste, Mathilde, 184 208
East Stroubsburg, Burt, John, 124 105
Emans, Kling, Fred, 997 ----
Emlenton, Kreis, Sebastian, 872 485
Emporium, Brummle, F. X., 167 186
Erie, Conrad, C. M., 6,360 8,200
“ Downer & Howard, 2,140 2,092
“ Kalvelage, Henry, 3,236 2,795
“ Koehler & Bro., 7,365 8,388
“ Vogt, Anton, 245 295
Etna, Metzger, Michael, 175 231
Exeter, Hughes, H. R., & Co. 1,760 1,373
Farmers’ Valley, Schott, E., ---- 108
Franklin, Crossman, Philip, 870 761
Gallitzen, Ankenbaber & Gaegler, ---- 61
Germania, Meixner, Frank, 35 62
“ Schwarzenbach, J., 26 53
Gettysburg, Henning, John, 49 35
“ Bartel, J. F. 250 196
Greensburg, Hagel, John, 349 332
Green Township, Schnell, J. L., & Bro., 167 97
Hanover P. O. Neiderhofer, John, 108 108
Hamburg, Buckman, Jacob, 347 138
Harrisburg, Bynre & Ogden, 18 155
“ Doehn, George, 3,147 2,646
“ Dressell, C. A., 3,979 826
“ Fink, Henry, 3,794 3,220
Harrison, Brewer, John, 73 83
Hazelton, Bach, Henry, 3,543 3,230
Heidelburg, Schmidt, Ambrose, 183 63
Hollidaysburgh, Buckberger, A., ---- 48
“ Springer, J. J., 6 12
Indiana, Stadmiller, Geo., 55 119
Jefferson, Werner, John, 1,418 832
Jersey Shore, Hauser, Chas., 135 146
Johnstown, Baemly, W. H., 251 ----
“ Emmerling, John, ---- 111
“ Heubach, Max, 509 371
“ Wehn, Charles, 363 392
Kittanning, Biehl, Louis, 1,564 877
Lancaster, Effinger, Jas., Agt., 2,872 2,154
“ Knapp, Lawrence, 962 1,085
“ Knapp, Lawrence, 1,938 1,916
“ Koehler, Casper, 2,828 1,240
“ Landis, D. B., 504 488
“ Richman, G. E., Agt., 422 576
“ Rieker, Frank A., 2,816 3,063
“ Schwenberger, W. A., Agt., 602 635
“ Sprenger, J. A., 2,104 1,890
“ Wacker, S. V. S. Bros., 2,112 1,790
Lebanon, Hoezle, Joseph, 240 ----
“ Leubert, F. A., 1,425 1,393
Lewistown, Bossinger, H., 495 446
“ Haeben, Theo., 367 143
Liberty, Zeifle, John, 63 69
Lock Haven, Fable, Charles P., 456 443
“ Flaig, Matthew, 230 348
“ Pfeffert, Mary, 144 164
Loretto, Bengele, Jos., 106 28
Lower Saucon, Benz, Edward, 910 628
Lykens, Bueck, H., 2,252 2,905
Manheim, Loerher, Fred’k, 545 810
Marietta, Manlick, Fred, 381 388
Mauch Chunk, Weysser & Zinzer, 154 273
McKreesport, Reichenbach, Ernest, 640 558
Mead, Smith, E. A., ---- 650
Mill Creek, Voigt & Platz, 730 806
Minersville, Aapf, Charles, & Co., 730 826
“ Kear, F. J. & Co., ---- ----
Mount Joy, Bube, Alvis, 394 316
Muncy, Harp, Wm., 100 103
Newcastle, Knock, C., 500 500
“ Tresser, Adam, 1,410 1,400
Norristown, Cox, A. R., 2,376 2,228
“ Schiedt, 720 699
North East, Bannister, James, 134 134
North Huntington, Hufnagel, Conrad, 63 58
Oil City, Wurster, Chas., 1,500 810
Philadelphia, Ambron, Adam, 338 Dillwyn 28 37
St.
“ Amrhein, L., 6th and
Clearfield
Sts., 1,774 1,858
“ Archby, McLean & Co., 309
and
311 Green St., 13,555 10,620
“ Baltz, J. & P., 31st and
Thompson
Sts., 23,619 23,915
“ Bander, Jehn, 400 Lynd St., ---- 150
“ Bergdoll, Louis, 29th and
Parish Sts., 47,514 46,410
“ Bergner & Engel, Brewing
Co.,
cor. 32d and Thompson Sts., 120,187 124,860
“ Betz, John F., 401 New
Market St., 52,891 44,653
“ Bower, John, estate of, 33d
near Master St., 4,724 4,617
“ Cary, Geo. & Co., 934 N. 3d 16,753 13,579
St.,
“ Conrad, Jacob, 27th and
Parish Sts., 3,714 4,709
“ Connor, James, 819 Carpenter
St., ---- 68
“ Christmas, Chas., 1605 Cabot
St., 185 145
“ Class, Charles, 1732 Mervine
St., 2,570 2,160
“ Dauterich, H., 341 N. 4th 1,407 534
St.,
“ Eble & Herter, 32d and
Thompson Sts., 12,280 9,990
“ Eisele, Franz, 2630 Girard 90 329
Ave.,
“ Engelke, Mathias, 835 St.
John St., 1,551 1,272
“ Enser & Theurer, 2d and
Ontario Sts., 6,628 5,490
“ Erdreig, Andrew, 142 Ash 2,916 2,400
St.,
“ Esslinger, George, 1012
Jefferson St., 494 783
“ Feil, F., 2204 Lairhill St., ---- 405
“ Fielmeyer, Joseph, 2325 N.
Broad St., 2,707 1,975
“ Finkenauer, Theo., 31st St.,
above Master, 1,278 1,624
“ Finkenauer, Theo., 1716
Germantown Ave., ---- ----
“ Fisher, Albert, 2900
Frankford Road, 48 72
“ Fritch, John, 4224 Edward 1,910 2,014
St.,
“ Gamdler & Co., 715 North 3d 861 596
St.,
“ Gardner, J. & Co., 21st and
Washington Sts., 31,516 37,471
“ Gindele, Geo., 1024 W.
Girard Ave., 5,040 4,934
“ Gindele, Joseph, 1205 Darien
St., 1,542 1,445
“ Grauch, John, 4228 Edward
St., 3,240 2,599
“ Gross, Louis, estate of,
2421 N. St., 32,807 393
“ Guckes, Riehl & Co., 824 St. 8,469 6,477
“ Guckes, Philip, School Lane, 2,427 2,278
“ Haisch, Christian, 1748
Mervine St., 5,355 4,728
“ Henzler & Flach, 32d and
Thompson Sts., 12,741 10,000
“ Jocobi, Otto, 913 N. 4th 62 67
St.,
“ Jeckel, Geo., ---- ----
“ Kasper, Charles, 606 N. 4th 990 499
St.,
“ Keller, George, 31st, near
Jefferson St., 5,866 1,624
“ Kumpf, Wm. & Co., 2610
Frankford Road, 1,464 951
“ Klopfer, Christian, 2427 N.
Broad St., 1,437 1,458
“ Kohnle, J., 321 Fairmount 1,850 1,700
Ave.,
“ Leibert & Obert, 156 Oak 1,591 1,971
St.,
“ Leimbach, Eliza F., 1751
Bodine St., 875 1,008
“ Loescher, John, 1735 Walter
St. ---- ----
“ Maass, Charles, 1214
Germantown Ave., 233 243
“ Magee, Richard, 731 Vine 15,833 30,631
St.,
“ Massey, Wm. & Co., 10th and
Filbert Sts., 58,214 57,667
“ Manz, Gottleib, 6th and
Clearfield Sts., 3,722 3,433
“ McCaffrey & O’Rielley, 407
Lynd St., ---- 65
“ McKenney & Co., 614 S. 6th
St., 1,024 1,528
“ Miller, Adams, 929 N. 5th 470 399
St.,
“ Miller, John C., Ashmead and
Wakefield Sts., Germantown, 22,852 20,716
“ Moore, James L., 1314
Fitzwater St., 5,137 4,488
“ Mueller, Henry, Agent, 31st
and Jefferson Sts., 15,225 18,040
“ Mueller, Charles, 2107
German Ave., 123 186
“ Muellerschoen, C., 495 N. ---- 74
3d St.,
“ Narr, Minnie, 242 N. 4th St., 48 49
“ Ohse, Henay, 1423 Germantown
Ave., 258 353
“ Ortleib, Trubert, 1248 N. 3d
St., 73 32
“ Otterbach, L., ---- 1,062
“ Otto & Layer, 518 Locust 1,593 1,235
St.,
“ Pfaehler, Mary, 931 St. John
St., 141 175
“ Philadelphia Brewing Co.,
Falls of Schuylkill, ---- 1,920
“ Poth, F. A., 31st and
Jefferson Sts., 23,049 34,178
“ Presser, Charles, Jr., 35th
and Aspen Sts., ---- 79
“ Reiger, Jos., 4th and
Cadwalader Sts., 1,037 1,623
“ Rothacker, G. F., 31st St.,
below Master, 6,872 6,755
“ Ruoff, Moritz, 1230
Frankfort Road, 330 498
“ Salber, Jno., 520 Richmond 80 104
St.,
“ Salomon, J., 1514 N. Front, 17 65
“ Schaal, Caroline, 627
Carpenter St., 94 114
“ Schaefer, F., 1220 Mosher 515 2,187
St.,
“ Schaufler, Chas., 1742 North
Fourth St., 300 478
“ Schaufler, J. F., 2551 N. 1,166 776
2d St.,
“ Schemm, Peter, 25th and
Poplar Sts., 11,135 9,697
“ Schiltinger, G., 1020 E.
Cumberland St., ---- 17
“ Schick, Jacob, 118 Master 1,804 1,945
St.,
“ Schmid, Gottlieb, 715 S. 7th
St., 125 357
“ Schmidt, Christian, 113
Edward St., 13,981 13,211
“ Schintzer, J., 1148 N. 3d 14 624
St.,
“ Seitz, George, 2327 N. 7th 2,048 1,819
St.,
“ Smith, Robert, 20 S. 5th 15,000 14,711
St.,
“ Specht, C. L., 1033 W.
Girard Ave., 2,678 2,774
“ Staubmiller, J., 1441 N.
10th St., 97 181
“ Stein, John, 3365 Ridge 3,338 2,515
Ave.,
“ Strobele, Anton, 943 902
“ Theis, C. & Co., 32d and
Master Sts., 14,716 7,372
“ Straubmueller, Jos., 33d and
Thompson Sts., 8,904 8,086
“ Weihmann, John, 815
Callowhill St., 1,792 2,150
“ Wolf, Christian, 212 North
Third St., 90 217
“ Wolters, Charles, 11th and
Oxford Sts., 3,431 15,158
“ Wurster, Wm., 1325
Germantown Ave., 24 141
“ Zann, Philip, 620 N. Third 168 321
St.,
“ Zierfuss, Fritz, 422 142 270
Diamond St.,
Pittsburgh, Auen, Philip, 84 102
“ Darlington & Co., 6,016 7,346
“ Frauenheim & Vilsak, 15,030 18,933
“ Friedel, Henry, 547 484
“ Gangwisch, John, 4,384 4,725
“ Hauch, E., 1,720 1,490
“ Kaltenhaeusser, V., 197 120
“ Lauer, Philip, 218 163
“ Nusser, John, 2,349 1,834
“ Pier, Dannels & Co., 9,404 6,261
“ Reichenbach, John, 1,176 1,509
“ Rhodes, Joshua, 6,090 4,752
“ Schaler, John, 159 203
“ Spencer, McKay & Co., 15,651 14,350
“ Stirm, John G., 258 433
“ Straub & Son, 6,457 9,400
“ Wainwright, Z., & Co., 9,229 10,888
“ Weber, Frank, ---- ----
“ Wilhelm, Henry, 2,200 2,318
“ Wood, H. T., & Bro., 957 3,058
Pittston, Bishop, George, 2,794 332
“ Hughes, H. R., & Co., 1,760 1,373
“ Hughes, H. R., & M., 4,569 4,526
Plumer, Brecht, Christian, 337 99
Pottsville, Rettig, Chas., 1,980 1,904
“ Schmidt, Lorenz, 5,220 4,707
“ Yuengling, D. G., & Son, 13,404 13,688
Railroad P. O., Helb, Fred, 315 429
Reading, Barbey, Peter, 6,211 8,152
“ Felix, N. A., Estate of, 3,991 4,333
“ Keller, Samuel C, 2,595 2,010
“ Lauer, Fred’k, (No. 1,) 3,990 3,648
“ Lauer, Fred’k, (No. 2,) 15,157 18,793
“ Peltzer, Abraham, 114 198
Renevo, Binder, Luke, 232 277
Reynoldsville, Kingsley & Co., ---- ----
Roxborough, Nagle, Sebastian, 490 ----
Saucon, Rennig, George, 895 ----
Scranton, Morton & Briggs, 651 764
“ Robinson, Elizabeth, 5,830 6,800
Shenandoah, Tunnah, J., 27 34
Spring Garden, Pfeiffer, Abraham, 570 322
St. Mary’s, Geier, William, 399 155
“ Luhr, Chas. & Co., 732 825
“ Vogel, Lorenz, 105 97
Tamaqua, Adam, Joseph, 135 86
“ Haffner, Jos., ---- 723
Texas, Hartung & Krantz, 2,716 2,802
“ Lauer, Jacob, 735 738
Tioga, Ochs, G. F., 34 44
Titusville, Schwartz, Chas., 3,798 3,064
“ Theobold, John, 3,373 2,560
Towanda, Loder, Anton, 681 753
Tyrone, Hewel, Jos., 422 393
Union City, Wager, Theresa, 235 286
Unity, Benedictine Society, 2,457 2,644
Upper Augusta, Moeschlin, J., & A., 932 1,066
Vernon, Dudenhoeffer, N., 2,487 1,775
“ Schwab, Frank, 2,427 3,044
Warren, Loenhart, Philip, Jr., 1,973 1,679
Washington, Ditz, Andrew, 299 171
“ Schnarderer, G. J., 395 384
“ Zelt, Louis & Bro., 370 291
Walker, Hagle, George, 157 96
Wellsborough, Ochs, John, 52 59
“ Scheffer, Christian, 61 41
Weissport, Geisel, Catherine, 322 ----
Wilkesbarre, Reichards & Son, 5,020 3,588
“ Stegmaier, C., & Son, 3,908 4,362
Williams, Bennann & Kuebler, 6,033 5,566
Williamsport, Flock, Jacob, 3,013 2,465
“ Koch, A., & Bro., 2,302 2,465
“ Schroeder, Wm., 115 127
Woodward, Weikman, R., 284 226
York, Helb, Theo. R., 770 1,045
“ Ulrich, F. W., 800 1,009
Young, Haag, Christian, 324 264
--------- ---------
Number of Breweries, 317. 1,041,486 1,034,081
RHODE ISLAND.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Newport, Cooper, W. S., 284 838
Providence, Gartner, Herman, 77 94
“ Gauch, Chas., ---- 140
“ Hanley, J., & Co., 16,221 3,092
“ Herrman, Henry, ---- ----
“ Kiely Bros., 8,588 6,207
“ Molter, N., ---- 17,460
“ Nauman & Gaush, 40 ----
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 8. 25,210 27,837
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Columbia, Seegers, John C., 739 328
Walhalla, Bush, Chr., 39 44
---- ----
Number of Breweries, 2. 778 372
TENNESSEE.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Jackson, Kunz & Co., ---- 33
Knoxville, Knoxville Brewing Co., 103 228
Memphis, Memphis Brewing Co., Henry
Luchmann, Pres’t, 33 Munroe
St., 6,877 6,816
Nashville, Maus, C. A., & Bros., ---- ----
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 4. 6,980 7,107
TEXAS.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Austin, Pressler, Paul, 431 ----
Belleville, Frank, F. J., & Bro., ---- 54
Ben Ficklin, Wolters, H. & Co., 121 156
Boerne, Hammer & Buelle, 153 237
Brackett, Weidlich Bros., ---- ----
Brenham, Giesecke, G. F., & Bro., 1,137 1,255
“ Zeiss, Lorenz, 746 882
Castroville, Kieffer, Biaise, 281 300
Cleburne, Guffee, John, 200 ----
Cuero, Buschick, Hugo, 121 120
Cypress Creek, Jugenhutt, T. & M., 120 202
Dallas, Arnoldi, E., 595 ----
Fayetteville, Janak, Jos., 85 144
Flatonia, Amsler & Co., ---- 319
“ Richter, Vincent, 346 390
Fort Concho, Hubert, Walter, ---- ----
Fredericksburg, Maner, John, 66 84
“ Probst, Fred, 208 228
Giddings, Umlang, Theo., 139 311
High Hill, Richtel & Kiushel, 433 484
Houston, Wagner & Hermann, 270 152
Industry, Walter, J. W., 90 80
Lagrange, Kreisch, H. L., 774 780
Lando, Knott, J. J., ---- ----
Millheim, Galler, H., 107 101
New Braunfels, Rennert, Julius, 589 261
New Ulm, Hagemann, W., 157 125
San Antonio, Esser, William, 498 390
“ Hutzler, Joseph, 573 ----
“ Lareoda & Beau, ---- ----
“ Menger, Mrs. W. A., 1,166 ----
Seguin, Krause, C. P., 84 59
“ Leber, F. F., 107 164
Victoria, Mack, L. F., 168 233
“ Weber, M., 181 152
Weatherford, Both, W. F., & Co., 49 ----
Yorktown, Cellmer, M., 56 55
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 37. 10,050 7,718
UTAH.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Alta, Schmidt, P., 91 18
Beaver, Fischer, A. A., 59 134
Bingham, Wehrsitz, B., 166 ----
Corinne City, Amsler, N., 386 237
Frisco, Savior, John, & Co., ---- 6
Hot Springs, Crossley, James, 265 275
Logan, Worley, Henry, ---- ----
Minersville, Kiescle, G., ---- ----
Nephi City, Coulson, Samuel, 59 67
Ogden, Brickmiller & Wells, 784 876
“ Richter & Fry, 649 666
Salt Lake City, Burns, James, 630 ----
“ Keyser & Monitz, 1,360 3,315
“ Margetts, R. B., 486 479
“ Wagener, Henry, 3,979 4,590
Sandy, Schueler, Maria, 220 233
Silver Reef, Noebling, B, ---- 61
“ Welte, P., 166 185
Springville, Dallin, John, 16 16
South Cottonwood, Winkler, R., 174 318
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 20. 9,490 11,476
VERMONT.
One Brewery, 285 173
VIRGINIA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Alexandria, Engelhardt, H., 328 480
“ Portner, Robert, 10,366 12,192
Richmond, Robson, G. W., ---- 3,022
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 3. 10,694 15,694
WASHINGTON TERRITORY.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Colfax, Erford & Palmday, ---- 159
Dayton, Rumpf & Dunkel, 87 60
Mukilteo, Cantrini, Geo. & Co., 240 432
Olympia, Wood, J. C. & J. R, 175 264
Palama, Schauble, J., 105 72
Pomeroy, Scholl Bros., ---- 36
Port Colville, Hosstetter, J. M. 126 186
Port Townsend, Roesch, W. 55 77
Seattle, Mehlhom, Aug., 1,804 868
“ Slorah & Co., 1,652 1,111
Spoken Falls, Peterson, M. & Co., ---- ----
Steilacoom, Schafer & Howard, 1,810 1,559
“ Furst & Baumeister, ---- 83
Vancouver, Young, Anton, 218 243
“ Dampfhoffer, L., ---- 30
Walla Walla, Betz, Jacob, 216 222
“ Kleber, F. E., 172 281
“ Scott, Benj., 360 649
“ Stahl, J. H., 851 811
Yakima, Schanne, Chas., 94 97
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 20. 7,965 7,231
WEST VIRGINIA.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Charlestown, H., Slack, ---- ----
Fairmount, Berns, W. F., 88 72
Lubeck, Hebrank & Rapp, 1,911 1,752
Martinsburg, Rossmarck, F. T., 253 237
Wellsburg, Hebrank, Andrew, 83 93
Wheeling, Balzer, Mauras, Twenty-Fifth St., 488 408
“ Kinghorn & Smith, 840 Market St., 36 252
“ Kress, Kilian, 1425 Smith St., 1,265 1,207
“ Nail City Brewing Co., Peter
Weltz, Pres’t, 33d and Wetzel
Sts., 6,395 7,630
“ Reymann, A., Wetzel St., 12,557 12,255
“ Smith & Co., 1700 Chapline St., ---- ----
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 10. 23,086 23,906
WISCONSIN.
No. of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Algonga, Gatz & Elser, 1,530 ----
Allonez, Hochgrave, A., 1,384 1,417
Alma, Briggeboos, Wm., 531 614
“ Hemrich, John, 680 630
Alnapee, Alnapee Brewing Co., 448 631
Appleton, Munch, Carl, 1,493 1,907
“ Wing & Fries, 496 320
Arcadia, Ferlig, John N., 500 450
Ashland, Schottmiller, F. X., 179 171
Bangor, Hussa, Joseph, 540 490
Baraboo, Bender, Anna, 356 539
“ Ruland, Geo., 467 470
Beaver Dam, Binzel, Philip, 1,004 1,034
“ Goeggerle, John, 1,055 848
“ Steil, F. X., 112 181
Beloit, Schleuk & Co., 381 279
Berlin, Schmidt & Schunk, 490 473
Berry, Esser, George, 975 915
Black River Falls, Oderbolz, Ulrich, 684 540
Bloomer, Wendland, John, 300 ----
Boscobel, Ziegelmaier, Geo., 270 410
Branch P. O., Zunz, Elizabeth, 1,512 1,620
Burlington, Finke, W. J., 498 650
Carlton, Langenkamp, A. & Bro., 228 227
Cassville, Scherr & Alrath, 250 223
Cedarburg, Weber, John, 1,556 1,270
Centreville, Scheibe, C., 1,392 1,470
Chilton, Becker, Phil, 1,092 1,056
“ Gutheil, F. R., 340 320
Chippewa Falls, Huber & Neher, 634 ----
“ Leinenkugel & Miller, 1,880 1,700
Christiana, Mehels, Henry, 166 ----
Columbus, Fleck, Stephen, 30 42
“ Kurth, Henry, 132 231
De Sota, Eckhardt, George, 261 245
Dodgeville, Treutzech, John G., 244 228
Durand, Lorenz, Philip, 234 288
“ Stimger, John, 105 ----
Eau Claire, Hautzsch, Emily M., 340 270
“ Leinenkugel, Theresa, 740 1,260
“ Leinenkugel Caroline, 625 ----
“ Sommermeyer, Henry & Co., 239 712
Farmington, Jaehnig, L., 1,051 741
Fond du Lac, Bech & Bros., 2,158 2,556
“ Frey, J. & C., 1,645 1,692
“ Sander, A., 748 726
“ Schussler, Jos., 1,056 904
“ Ziegenfus, John S., 268 ----
Fountain City, Fiedler, Henry, 420 357
“ Koschitz, John, 288 276
Fort Atkinson, Klinger, N., 414 236
“ Dalton, A. & Co., ---- 62
Fox Lake, Regelein, John C., ---- ----
“ Shlep, John, 91 150
Franklin, Gross, Philip, 323 382
“ Koellner, A., 370 ----
Germantown, Steben, John, 387 ----
“ Staats, John, 637 724
“ Van Dycke, O., ---- ----
Golden Lane, Link, John, 368 238
Grafton, Klug & Co., 168 1,116
Grand Rapids, Schmitt, Nicholas 190 188
Green Bay, Hagemeister, F., 2,525 2,688
“ Rahr, Henry, 3,669 3,473
Hartford, Portz, Jacob, 700 710
Highland, Schaffer, John, 316 203
Hillsborough, Schnell, Fred’k, 590 396
Horicon, Deierlein, Paul, 76 73
“ Groskopf, John, 70 76
Hudson, Moutman, Wm., 40 120
“ Yoerg, Louis, 666 711
Humbird, Eilert, Ernest, 498 512
Janesville, Buob, John & Bro., 2,046 3,151
“ Rosa, C. & Co., 650 610
“ Todd, John G., 1,516 1,564
Jefferson, Breuning, Jacob, 1,180 1,312
“ Danner & Heger, 580 714
“ Neuer & Georgelein, 191 317
Kenosha, Gottfredson, J. G. & Son, 910 1,010
“ Muntzenberger & Co., 2,041 1,965
Kewaunee, Brandes, Chas., 408 458
“ Deda, Chas., 264 286
Kilbourne City, Leute, Julius, 139 190
Kossuth, Chloupek, A., 192 96
La Crosse, Gund, John, 4,370 6,250
“ Heilman, J., 2,880 2,360
“ Hofer, J. & J., 289 ----
“ Michel, C. & J., 6,348 7,504
“ Zeisler, Geo., 1,425 2,350
Leroy, Weidig, Nic., 193 166
“ Schmidt, Geo., ---- ----
Lincoln, Loux, Geo. E., 138 166
Lisbon, Boots, Ephraham, 301 463
Madison, Breckheimer, M., 1,880 1,580
“ Fauerbach, Peter, 1,170 1,375
“ Hausmann, Jos., 4,255 5,836
“ Hess & Moser, 1,640 1,670
“ Rodermund Brewing Co., F.
Briggs, Manager, 1,653 1,557
Manitowoc, Dobert, Chr., ---- ----
“ Fricke, Carl, 320 ----
“ Pautz, F., 926 1,345
“ Rahr, Wm., 3,050 4,150
“ Richter, J., 580 ----
Marshfield, Bourgevis, M., 923 941
Mauston, Runkel, Maria & Co., 496 496
Mayville, Darge, Wm., 428 385
“ Mayville Brewing Co., ---- ----
“ Zeigler, M., 320 331
Mazomanie, Tinker & Slough, 496 528
Megnon, Zimmerman, Franz & Co., 1,154 973
Menasha, Mayer, Joseph, 1,095 1,091
“ Merz & Behre, 868 615
Menomonee, Fuss, Christian, 454 386
“ Roleff & Wagner, 450 920
Merton, Frederickson, R., 108 94
Milwaukee, Allpeter, Phillip, 601 3rd 495 436
St.,
“ Best, Ph. Brewing Co.,
Empire Brewery, Chestnut St., 87,527 121,980
“ Best, Ph. Brewery Co., So.
Side Brewery, 425 Virginia 38,286 45,994
St.,
“ Blatz, V., 609 Broadway, 49,168 53,907
“ Borchert, F. & Son, Ogden
and Milwaukee Sts. 8,250 10,025
“ Ennes, John & Co., 810 State 3,640 94
St.,
“ Falk, Franz (Wauwatosa), 22,205 34,009
“ Gettelman, A., (Wauwatosa,) 4,780 4,539
“ Gipfel, Charles, 417 45 45
Chestnut St.,
“ Grisbaum & Kehrein, 91 Knapp
St., 143 163
“ Liebscher, L., 189 Sherman 337 410
St.,
“ Miller, F, J., (Wauwatosa,) 10,677 16,293
“ Milwaukee Brewing
Association, 7th and Cherry 3,629 4,674
Sts.,
“ Obermann, J. & Co., 502
Cherry St., 6,416 7,282
“ Powell’s Ale brewing Co.,
222 Huron St., 1,034 562
“ Schlitz, J., Brewing Co.,
3rd and Walnut Sts., 96,913 110,832
Mineral Point, Argall, James, 600 595
“ Gillmann, C., 2,071 1,731
Mishicot, Linstadt, J. 656 720
Mt. Pleasant, Wolf, Charles, 350 341
Munroe, Hefty, Jacob, 1,354 1,600
“ Luenberger & Co., 1,080 1,365
“ Pastel & Huppler, 1,260 1,570
Neenah, Ehrgott Bros., 410 360
Neilsville, Neverman & Sontag, 637 424
Neosha, Binder, J., 319 410
Newburg, Schwalbach, R., 99 132
New Cassel, Husting, J. P., 203 224
New Glarus, Hefty, Jacob, 346 306
New Lisbon, Bierbauer, Henry, 642 618
New London, Becker, Edward, 557 531
“ Knapstein, T., & C., 830 898
Oconomowoc, Bingel, Peter, 1,320 965
Oconto, Pahl, Louis P., 810 849
Onalaska, Moore, M. G., 648 660
Oshkosh, Glatz & Elser, 1,530 1,646
“ Horn & Schwalm, 1,366 ----
“ Kaehler, Christian, 140 178
“ Kinzl & Walter, 470 480
“ Rahr, August, 340 315
Pewaukee, Schock, Mathias, 395 ----
Pheasant Branch, Bernard, H., 485 760
Pierce, Vaser, John, 110 47
Platteville, Rhemstedt, F., 724 532
Plymouth, Schneider, A., 435 ----
“ Weber, G., 380 313
Portage, Epstein, Henry, 178 190
“ Haertel, Chas., Estate of, 2,940 3,064
Port Washington, Dix, H., & Co., 1,632 1,114
“ Wittmann, John, 610 590
Potosi, Hail, G., 1,373 1,187
“ Meerke, Henry, 1,016 ----
Priarie du Chien, Schumann & Menges, 3,216 2,779
Prescott, Husting, N. P., 734 696
Racine, Dienken & Schad, 167 ----
“ Engle & Co., ---- 194
“ Heck, Fred, 2,033 1,725
“ Schelling & Klenkerl, ---- 1,856
Reedsburg, Reedsburg Brewing Co., 494 213
Ripon, Haas, John, 1,274 1,268
River Falls, Hickey & Meyer, 307 189
Sauk City, Drossen, Anna, 420 476
“ Leinkugel, F. L., 130 ----
“ Lenz, Wm., 620 382
“ Zapp, Robert, ---- 300
Schleisingerville, Stork & Hartig, 497 792
Schleswig, Gutheil & Bro., 406 670
Sevastopol, Lindemann, L., & Bro., 225 207
Shawano, Dengel, Geo. 250 292
Sheboygan, Gustsch, L., 2,887 2,608
“ Kull, Martin, 442 ----
“ Schlachter, Thos., 490 212
“ Schrerer, K., 4,645 5,455
Sheboygan Falls, Durow, D., 248 176
Sherman, Mayer, Jos., 234 207
“ Seifert, Julius, 672 ----
Shullsburgh, Schultz & Lauterbeck, 303 159
Stevens Point, Kuhl, Adam, 444 624
“ Lutz, A., & Bro., 705 975
Sturgeon Bay, Wagner Bros., 288 469
Theresa, Quast, John, 350 347
“ Weber, Gebhard, 1,387 1,042
Tomah, Goudrezick, I., 192 221
Trempeleau, Melchoir J., 120 172
Trenton, Schwalbeck, R., 132 142
Two Rivers, Mueller, R. E., 1,156 1,145
Waterford, Beck, John & Bros., 168 201
Waterloo, Schwager, Wm., 94 64
Watertown, Bursinger, Joseph, 5,237 4,992
“ Fuermann, Aug., 10,287 8,065
Waukesha, Weber, Stephan, 1,170 1,363
Waupaca, Arnold, L., 53 39
Waupun, Seifert, Peter, 926 976
Wausau, Mathie, Frank, 791 916
“ Ruder, George, 768 824
Wayne, Kreutzer & Groeschel, ---- 59
“ Pies, P., 193 159
West Bend, Kuehlthau, Adam, 1,470 1,360
“ Mayer, S. F. & Co., 2,460 2,192
West Depere, Schmidt, A. P., 348 408
Westford, Justin, Jos., 88 19
West Lindo, Gross, John & Son, ---- ----
Weyauwega, Duerr, J. A., 338 415
“ Griel & George, 570 ----
Whitewater, Klinger, N., 1,440 1,297
Winneconne, Yaeger, Theo., 78 83
Wista, Ede, Peter, 90 74
Wrightstown, Gutbier & Miller, 203 64
------- -------
Number of Breweries, 226. 508,553 583,068
WYOMING TERRITORY.
Number of barrels sold.
1878. 1879.
Atlantic City, Macomber & Huff, 102 136
Cheyenne, Braun, J., 750 808
“ Kabis, L., 580 343
“ Kapp., C., 902 1,605
Green River, Brown, Adam, 76 29
Lander, Hart & Marcum, 45 26
Laramie, Bath, Fred., 1,605 1,462
Rawlins, Fischer, G. & Co., ---- 52
------ ------
Number of Breweries, 8. 4,060 5,505
INDEX.
Adulteration of Beer, 62
Alcohol in bread, 61
in malt liquors, 97
in spirits, 97
Alcoholism not caused by beer, 145
Ale, American, 70
development of, 68
Analysis of barley and malt, 60
of beer, 60, 170
of spirits, 97
of wines, 95
Army use of beer, 84
Artevelde, Jacob van, 21
Austro-Hungary, 47
Authorities, evidence of, _see Evidence of authorities_.
Balling, Prof., 61
Barley, analyses, 60
product and import, 102
Basilius Valentinus, 35
Bavaria, ancient, 31
and Maine, 87
Bavarian and Munich beer, 44
Beecher, Rev. Henry Ward, 90
Beer, adulteration of, 62
“ “ “ according to English investigation, 63
allowance for noble ladies, 43
American, improvements in, 70
analysis of, 60
as check to intemperance, 55
at Coney Island, 83
at first most esteemed in North Germany, 41
consumption of, in Paris, 52
cost of, in England, 56
earliest use of, 16
effects in France, 52
encouraged by Swedish government, 50
fermentation of, 69
first book concerning, 36
free of license in Pennsylvania until 1847, 27
general use of, diminishes crime, 51
“ “ “ “ drunkenness, 50
how made, 60
import and export of, 80
in malarial fever, 82
in the army, 84
its making resembles that of bread, 60
laws concerning, 19
made without hops, 28
materials for, 68
not destructive, 48
nutritive, 142
prepared with religious ceremonies, 17
product in foreign countries, 166
“ “ United States, 75
“ by states, 77
quantity used, 32
restorative and tonic, 86
should be fostered by government, 151
taxation on, 51
tends to good order, 83
transportation of, in early times, 42
_versus_ coffee, 24
“ whisky, 11, 92
varieties of, 68
bill, 55
drinking, advantages of, 91
“ does not cause degeneration, 147
epoch, first in Europe, 32
“ second in Europe, 32, 36
privileges granted by Russia, 51
tax, 43
Beet-root, 106
Belgium, 49
Bock beer, 44
Bohemia, 13, 31
Bowditch, Henry J. Report to Mass. Board of Health, 137
Brabant, 21
Braunschweiger Mumme, 24, 41
Breweries and dairy farms, 105
description of, 177
“ “ U. S. list of, 185
Brewers, generosity of, 56
privileges granted to, 24
returns, publishing of, 185
Brewery at Dobraw, 21
Brewing, capital invested in, 76
Budweis, brewery at, 17
Burton on Trent, 22
Chambers, Prof. T. K., 86
Charlemagne, 17
Chemistry becomes practical, 33
Club-rooms in Maine, 116
Coffee and beer manifesto, 25
Coffee _versus_ beer, 24
Coney Island, 83
Consumption of malt liquors in U. S., 100
of spirits, wines and liquors, 100
Coppinger, Joseph, 82
Crime under prohibitory law, 115
Crosby, Rev. Dr. Howard, 94
Cruelty of bigotry, 125
Dairy farms and breweries, 105
Danes, ancient, 18
Death in consequence of excess, 53
Degeneration charged to beer drinking, 147
Denmark, modern, 50
Distilled and fermented liquors, 94
Duke of Wellington, 55
Egypt, modern, 57
Egyptians, 16, 31
Embecker beer, 39, 44
England, ancient, 22, 30
imported beer from Germany, 42
modern, 55
English beer bill, 55
colonies, brewing in, 72
Evidence of authorities, ch. XI.—Dr. Abercrombie, 143
Dr. A. Baer, 143
George Bancroft, 143
Dr. Albert J. Bernay, 146
Dr. Henry J. Bowditch, 128
Contemporary Review, 146
Consulate general at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 131
Editor of Chicago Tribune, 132
Prof. Griesinger, 145
Dr. Harvey, 143
ch. XI.—Y. G. Hurd, 132
Prof. Huxley, 143
John Jay, 131
Sir Henry Labouchere, 143
Prof. Liebig, 131
Prof. Mulder, 141
Dr. Willard Parker, 140
Physician of a public institution, 134
Dr. Riley, 146
Prof. Roller, 145
Dr. Schlaeger, 132
Dr. Schoellamer, 144
Prof. Schreiber-Berzelius, 145
A. Schwarz, 103, 135
Dr. Selman, 145
Society of medical officers of insane asylums in Germany, 145
Prof. Stahlschmied, 141
Bayard Taylor, 143
Prof. Ure, 143
Excess restrained by civilization, 122
Exports of beer, 80
Fairs and markets, 40
“Fancy drinks,” 90
Farming, specialties in New England, 104
Ferment of alchemists, 34
Fermentation, 34
of lager beer, 71
Fermented and distilled liquors, 94
Flanders, 21, 30
France, 52
Franco Prussian war, 84
Frederick the Great, 24
French brewers’ association, 53
influence in Germany, 45
Gambrinus, 21
Garcelon, Gov., 112
Germany, ancient, 17
modern, 47
Gladstone, Hon. Wm. E., 55
Grains, 103
Greece, ancient, 16
modern, 52
Hammond, Dr. Wm. A., 94
Hofbrauhaus at Munich, 43
Holland, 48
gin sent to U. S., 49
Hops, amount exported, 101
“ used, 102
Imports of beer, 80
Intemperance in England, 55
Massachusetts Board of Health on, 117
Jacobus, 25
Japan, 58
Jefferson, Thomas, 15
Knaust, Dr. Heinrich, 37
Lager beer, fermentation of, 71
introduction in America, 75
Lauer, Hon. Frederick, 148, 178
Legislators, duty of, 14, 152
Libarius, 36
Liebig, Prof. His views, 67
misrepresented, 66
Liquor, legal and illegal sale of, 120
agencies in Maine, 111
Longevity in beer-drinking countries, 86
Lull, Raymond, 34
Luther, Martin, 39, 156
Maine and Bavaria, 87
law, proposed amendment, 108
Malt, analysis of, 60
liquors, alcohol in, 97
Monasteries lose beer privileges, 42
Monks as brewers, 21
Moleschott, Prof., 85
Munich court brewery, 43
beer, 45
National habits of drinking, 89
Netherlandish painters, 40
Newark, Sunday at, 162
brewers and a prohibitory speaker, 64
Noble brewers, 48
Norway, 50
Opium, use of, increased by prohibitory laws, 124
Paris, siege of, 85
Parker, Dr. Willard, 94
Pauperism and prohibitory law, 87
decreases with increasing use of beer, 88
Penn, William, 25
Persia, 58
Petrus Bonus, 34
Poland, 31
Porter, 71
Population in beer-drinking countries, 88
Prohibition and license compared, 119
in Maine, 109
papers and speakers, 63
Prohibitory laws, 108
“ and their cost, 114
“ and their results, 87, 115, 127
“ crime under, 115
“ ineffective, 13
views, 65
Prussia, 31
Putnam, Gen. Israel, 27
Rathskeller, origin of name, 24
Revenue from beer in U. S., 78
Romans, 16
Russia, 51
Saxons, ancient, 71
Sheen, Richmond, 86
Signs announcing sale of beer, 39
Social enjoyment, 152
Spain, 49
Specialties in New England farming, 104
Spirits, alcohol in, 97
Sprouts, 103
Stimulants universal, 111
Strychnine, 62
Sugar beet, 106
Sunday, according to the New Testament, 154
address of emperor of Germany, 157
at Chicago, 133
at Newark, N. J., 162
laws and customs, 153
laws in England, 158
letter from Ben. Franklin, 156
observance according to Archbishop Whately, John Bunyan, John
Milton, Melancthon, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Grotius, 155
Sweden, 50
Swett, Ch. F., speech of, 113
Tea intoxication, 146
Tobacco introduced in Germany, 41
Treating, 90
Turkey, 58
Under-ferment, 31
United States, beer product of, 15
early brewers, 25
Upper-ferment, 31
Valentinus, Basilius, 35
Wellington, Duke of, 55
Wines, alcohol in, 95
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs
and outside quotations. Order of illustrations in table of
illustrations does not match the occurrence in the text, this was not
corrected. Illustrations without captions have had a description
added, this is denoted with parentheses.
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the
text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a
predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg 34: “e” replaced by “ex” in “lapis philosophorum e suis
elementis”
34: “Labarius” replaced by “Libarius”
38: “wundersbaren” replaced by “wunderbaren”
Pg 39 fn 7: “Durft” replaced by “Durst”
50: “govenment” replaced by “government”
118: “chaptar” replaced by “chapter”
144: “cheifly” replaced by “chiefly”
169: “coroborate” replaced by “corroborate”
182: “accomodations” replaced by “accommodations”
187: “dissemminated” replaced by “disseminated”
231: “Witherspoo” replaced by “Witherspoon”
239: “Gotlied” replaced by “Gotlieb”
244: “Dephos” replaced by “Delphos”
250: 1879 value for “Voigt & Platz” missing tens digit (“8 6”)
value 806 inferred
252: Removed duplicate “St.” for “Guckes, Riehl & Co.”
254: “Forth” replaced by “Fourth”
254: “Sf.” replaced by “St.”
258: “Hagemaun” replaced by “Hagemann”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BEER, ITS HISTORY AND ITS ECONOMIC VALUE AS A NATIONAL BEVERAGE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
