Beer_ its history and its economic value as a national beverage F. W. Salem 903 downloads.pdf

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: F. W. Salem

Release date: June 10, 2025 [eBook #76262]

Language: English

Original publication: Hartford: F. W. Salem & Company, 1880

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/76262

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
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.

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 . S A L E M .

HARTFORD, CONN.:
F. W. S AL E M & CO MPA NY.
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 166
consumption of Beer in various

countries and cities,
“ 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.

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.

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.

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.

Genl 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.

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.

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
dry malt. difference.
barley.

Starch, 63.43 minus 48.86 14.57
Proteic
16.25 minus 15.99 0.26
substances,

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
1.11 plus 3.16 2.05
substances,
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.

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
18,620,950.00
the production,

—————— $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.
tax
name. bbls. increase. decrease. collected.

North
4 4 —— $100
Carolina,
Maine, 7 —— 7,024 ——
Alabama, 74 —— 110 ——
Arkansas, 104 —— 6 100
Vermont, 173 —— 112 115
South
586 —— 246 100
Carolina,
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
Same
W. Virginia, 22,157 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
113,740 —— 4,954 8,760.40
Hampshire,
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
“ 4 “ “ 1.20 “
Hampshire

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.

Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company.
HENRY UIHLEIN, ALFRED UIHLEIN, Sup t . AUG. UIHLEIN,
President. Secretary.

MILWAUKEE.
H. GUGLER & SON. GENL. LITHOS. 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
“ 7.78 “ “ “ “
Latour
Claret Vin
“ 8.99 “ “ “ “
Ordinaire
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 “ 52.60 “ “ “ “

Bourbon
Whisky “ 51.00 “ “ “ “
Whisky with
much foreign
matter “ 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
“ 2.56 “ “ “ “
Beer
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
Percentage.
Imperial Pint.
ounces ounces
alcohol. extract. of of
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.

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
no. of
population. prisoners
prisoners.
to the
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.”

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.”

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.

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.

Belmont Avenue Brewery,
Newark, N. J.,
G ottfried K rueger , P roprietor .
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.

Production In Number Production
Production In
Population. Hectoliters. of per head of
[24] gallons.
Breweries. 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
31,628,338 47,000,000 1,245,500,000 26,214 39.0
and Ireland,
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 proper, 25,742,404 257,630,403 10,480 10.0

United States, 38,558,371 10,848,446[25] 336,301,826 2,830 8.7
Switzerland, 2,759,854 890,000 23,585,000 400 8.5
Austro-
36,373,000 11,323,444 300,071,266 2,353 8.3
Hungary,
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
522,800 52,575 1,393,237 3 2.6
Dalmatia,
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.

gal. per
production.
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.

Specific
Carbonic
I.—Bavarian Beers. weight Water. Extract. Alcohol. Year.
Acid.
at 16°
Young winter beer of
Munich, 1018 870.83 1.40 58.74 38.6 1849
“ 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
of the brewery of the Court of
Munich, 1011 880.50 1.60 39.40 43.5 1846
“ “ 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) of the
Franciscan Convent , 1012 854.20 1.50 50.10 51.7 1853
Strong beer of Zacherl’s brewery, 1026 825.00 1.80 77.70 52.4 1853
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 Sedelmaier’s brewery, 1022 769.40 1.80 84.40 77.5 1850
II.—Foreign Beers.
Bottom- yeast beer of Wauka
1016 869.40 1.80 46.90 48.4 1844
(Prague)
Upper “ Pstross
1017 867,20 1.50 50.70 44.6 1844
“
“ “ Pchowitz,
1013 881.90 1.60 47.70 38.5 1844
near 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 & Perkins, of
1017 840.20 1.60 60.20 53.7 1852
London,
Scottish ale of Edinburg, two
1030 730.50 1.50 109.40 84.7 1851
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 Residue of Ash
Brewery Name of Specific Nitrogen
of Alcohol evaporation per
Firm. Beer. weight. per cent.
Barley. per liter. cent.
Detalle & Ord.
S. B. Cie. Ham. brown 1.0100 3.6 50.120 1.920 0.785
(Somme) beer,
“ Ord. pale
S. B. 0.9973 4.4 48.000 1.080 ——
“ beer,
“ Workmen’s
S. B. 1.0106 4.5 57.120 1.520 0.722
“ beer,

“ Ladies’
S. B. 1.0103 4.0 48.600 1.600 0.760
“ beer,
Lux & Co.,
S. B. Light beer 1.0106 3.8 42.480 1.800 0.620
Paris, (Seine)
Schmidt & Young
S. B. 1.0225 4.3 51.400 2.600 0.770
Co., “ bock,
“
S. B. Store beer, 1.0182 4.4 57.210 2.400 0.800
“
Watteblest
Ord.
(Vernelles)
W. B. brown 1.0050 4.5 39.440 1.280 ——
Pas de
beer,
Calais,
“
Ord. pale
W. B. “ 1.0078 4.5 35.800 1.440 0.710
beer,
“
Meesemaeker
Barley
W. B. (Dunkerque) 1.0130 5.5 73.120 3.700 0.840
wine,
Nord,
“
W. B. “ Pale ale, 1.0127 5.2 68.960 1.200 ——
“
Pollet,
Export
W. B. Courtrai 1.0080 4.5 48.160 1.195 0.750
beer,
(Belgium)
Hauthyssen, Ord.
W. B. Haunut brown 1.0115 4.7 51.105 1.310 0.715
(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 &
5.4 6.8 88.8
Co.)
Strong beer of Neumiller’s
12.4 4.6 83.0
brewery in Stockholm,
Swedish beer of Beijnoff
8.9 3.0 88.1
(Upsala)
“ Hillberg “ 8.2 2.6 89.2
Beer of the Bavarian brewery in
6.4 4.7 88.9
Upsala,
Bavarian beer of the Munich
7.4 4.0 83.6
brewery in Stockholm,
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
3.2 2.1 94.7
Beijnoff (Upsala),
Svagdricke (small beer) of
3.3 2.2 94.5
Hillberg,

ACCORDING TO C. HIMLEY.

Names of the Extract Phosphoric
Alcohol. Water.
Beers. of Malt. Acid.
Double beer of
13.68 2.16 0.065 84.16
Copenhagen,
(Orp) Salvator, 8.20 4.10 0.084 87.70
Waldschlosschen 5.50 3.84 0.088 89.66
(Erich) Erlanger
6.22 3.95 0.074 89.83
beer,
Berliner
6.20 3.44 0.068 90.36
Actienbier,
(Betz)
6.10 3.05 0.062 90.85
Eckernforder,
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
5.62 3.04 0.076 91.34
ale,
Hoff’s malt
5.60 3.04 0.075 91.36
extract,
(Eger & Co.)
5.54 3.77 0.088 90.69
Christiana,
(Henniger)
5.50 2.60 0.072 91.90
Erlanger,
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
in 100 Extract. Ash. Albumen.
Acid. Acid. Acid.
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 ——
“
Lambick,
5.4 0.016 0.35 0.159 3.49 0.36 ——
“
“ (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-
4.0 0.060 0.17 0.090 2.60 0.21 0.46
bier,
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,
4 5 5 4
(common,)
Porter, 5 6 7 6
London porter,
3 4 5 4
(common,)
Munich, Salvator, 5 6 12 10
Bock, 3.5 4 9 7
Bavarian beer,
3 4 6.5 4.5
(common,)
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
3.5 5 8 5.5
vain,
White beer, 2.25 3.25 5 3.5
Double Ujtzet of
3.25 4.5 5 4
Ghent,
Single “ “ 2.75 3.5 4 3
Barley beer of
3 3.5 4.5 3
Antwerp,
Strong beer of
4 4.5 4 3.5
Strasburg,
Strong beer of
4 5 4 3
Lille,
White beer of
3.5 4 8 5
Paris,

ACCORDING TO G. MONIER.
Dextrine,
Alcohol.
Names of the Albuminoid
(in Glucose. Salts.
Beer. Substances,
volumes.)
etc.

Cubic
Grammes. Grammes. Grammes.
cntms.
Beer of France
40.00 7.03 31.77 1.60
(Nord),
Beer of France
32.50 4.80 31.00 2.10
(Nord),
Beer of France
36.00 6.60 33.10 2.20
(Nord),
Pale ale
60.50 8.25 39.35 2.80
(Burton),
Pale ale
55.00 8.30 40.10 2.65
(Burton),
Munich beer, 56.25 15.10 58.40 2.52

“ “ 56.50 16.20 56.45 2.40
Amsterdam beer, 53.75 13.55 51.50 2.20
Paris beer
(called Strasburg 47.00 16.30 45.00 2.65
beer),
Paris beer
(called Strasburg 45.00 14.35 51.30 2.05
beer),
Paris beer
(called Strasburg 47.50 11.60 43.40 2.00
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
“ Ilmenau, 3.1 7.1 0.08 0.2
“ Jena (called of
3.0 6.1 0.05 0.2
Erlangen),
“ Weimar (called of
2.8 6.3 0.03 0.2
Bamberg),
“ 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
freed
}
Alcohol } { from 5.05 0.72 4.01
per cent.,
carbonic
Extract } { 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 of State. No. of No. of Barrels No. of Barrels Decrease. Increase.
Breweries. sold from sold from
May 1, 1877-8. May 1, 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
5 127,07 116,888 10,183
Hampshire,
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
8 4,060 4,505 445
Territory,
——— ————— ————— ———— ————
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,
Independence, 30 61
Castroville, Lauck, George, 284 404
Cherokee, Bader, Chs., 139 144
Chico, Croissant, Chs., 448 563
Chollas Doblin, C.,
Valley, 140 150

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,
Ferry, 221 263
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.,
Hill, 224 192
“ 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,
Bloomfield, 39 57
“ Hieronimus, S., —— 105
North San Koch, G. W.,
Juan, 356 427
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 Eureka Brewery,
City, 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,
Bernardino, 499 424
San Buena Hartman, Fredolin,
Ventura, 140 237
San Diego, Dobler, C., 49 155
“ Walter, Otto, 147 200
San Albany Brewery,
Francisco, Everett St.,
Hagerman, F. & Co.,
props., 13,815 13,000
“ Albrecht, James, 623
Braman St., —— 880
“ Bauer, John, 120
Fillmore St. —— 617
“ Buss & Hensler, 209
Treat Ave., —— 800
“ 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, prop., 5,225 4,045
“ 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, proprietor, 19,535 17,014
“ 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 St.,
Metzler, Chas.,
proprietor, 4,675 4,969
“ Hayes Valley
Brewery, 612 Grove
St., Wahlmuth &
Co., proprietors, 2,901 3,000
“ Hensler &
Fredericks. —— ——
“ Hibernia Brewery, 17,250 19,546
Howard St., Nunan,

M., proprietor,
“ Humbold Brewery,
1839 Mission St.,
Noethig & Turk,
proprietors, 6,784 8,000
“ Jackson Brewery,
Mission St.,
Frederick, Wm. A.,
proprietor, 7,522 8,008
“ 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,
proprietor, 9,625 8,000
“ National Brewery,
Fulton and Webster
Sts., Gluck &
Hansen, proprietors, 13,270 13,200
“ New York Brewery,
Shotwell St., Kirby,
L. J., proprietor, 2,457 508
“ North Beach 426 360
Brewery, Powell and
Chestnut Sts.,

Schwarz, Jos.,
proprietor,
“ 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,
Obispo, 295 122
“ Hauser &
Williamson, —— ——
San Rafael, Bagen & Goerl. 1,374 1,559
Santa Mueller, H. & Bro.,
Barbara, 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,
River, —— 5
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
379,373 385,839
Breweries, 189.

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 El Paso Co. Brewing
City, 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 Ullrich, Fred,
Springs, 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 Green St., 792 661
Washington, Adt. F. J., bet. 13th
and 14th Sts., E. and
D. and S. E., 2,569 1,960
“ Albert, John, cor.
25th and F. N. W., 686 597
“ Cook, John G., 45 N
St., N. W., 264 364
“ Dickson, Chris., 719
4 1-2 St., 1,373 1,309
“ 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., N. W., 2,258 1,674
“ Zanner, Wm., 526 4
1-2 St., S. W., 620 438
———— ————
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, —— ——
Boise City, Broadbeck, John, 6 240
“ Lemp, John, 329 492
Bonanza Hepburn, John &
City, 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 St., 250 138
“ 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 Ave., 19,595 16,831
“ 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. Heim, F. & Bro.,
Louis, 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
Belleville, Co., 10,019 11,618
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.,
Township, 145 ——
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,
Station, 174 147
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 Geise, Conrad,
Bluffs, 6,006 5,740
County of Amana Society,
Iowa, 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,
Center, 134 150
Garnavillo, Schumacher, H., 611 663
Grand Koering, Jos.,
Meadow, 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 Gross, A. A.
Hampton, 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.,
Mound, 140 ——
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,
Point, 921 858
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 Fey, John,
Mitchell, 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. 186,176 169,030

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 Antsch & Metzner,
City, —— ——
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 St., 8,136 9,259
“ 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.

Bauernschmidt, Jno.,
Baltimore,
803 W. Pratt St., 3,573 3,778
“ 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
[28]
“ Lang & King, 3,420 9,822
[29]
“ Parsons & Co., 8,112 4,530
“ Pfaff, H. & J., 26,860 34,862
“ Roessle, John, 41,000 42,827
“ Rueter & Alley, 60,156 40,509
[30]
“ Smith & Engle, 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. 711,166 663,978[31]
[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 St., 5,581 9,499
“ 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 Adrian Bros.,
Rapids, 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 Heuser, A.,
Baltimore, 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 Kratockvill, F. W.,
City, 248 140
“ Smith, John, 238 217
West Bay, Kohler & Jordan,
City, 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 Fleckenstein, Paul,
City, 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 Kowitz, Ferdinand,
Falls, 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 Burkhard, Samuel,
Landing, 520 603
Redwood Weiss, John,
Falls, 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 Schottermuller, J.,
Falls, 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 Schmasse, A., & Co.,
America, 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 Hanney, Ferdinand,
Girardeau, 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 Ave., 27,532 27,207
“ 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 78,422 88,714
Carondelet Ave. and

Cherokee St.,
“ 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 Ave., 15,060 10,527
“ 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
Sts., 27,079 31,474
“ 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 Rampeck, H. J.,
City, 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.

Coffin &
Beatrice,
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 Reyschlag, Fred,
City, 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 ——
Austin, Bauer, G. A., 324 388

Battle Amfahr, John,
Mountain, 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 Kirchner & Co.,
Valley, —— 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.

Fall Mountain Lager
Cold River,
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 Wittig, Catharine,
Hoboken, 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 Brewing
Albany,
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
Cranberry St., 600 ——
“ 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 St., 210 250
“ Herrmann, Henry,
14 North Ninth St., 80 92
“ 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 St., 150 185
“ 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 40,284 50,287
Brewing Co., Wm.
Brown, pres’t.

Humboldt and
Meserole St.,
“ 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,
(L. I.) 18,990 18,717
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 Atlantic Brewery,
York, 112 ——

East Leicht, Fred,
Williamsburg, 3,700 3,360
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 Stokel, Wesley,
Corners, 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 Ahles, Jacob, 155
City, East 54th St., 10,581 12,578
“ Barry & Bro., 319
East 40th St., 161 171
“ 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 St., 28,961 34,129
“ 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 St., 20,257 23,500
“ 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 St., 14,680 13,841
“ Ruppert, Jacob,
1639 Third Ave., 101,058 105,713

“ Schaefer, F. & M.,
Brewing Co., 4th
Ave, bet. 50th &
51st Sts., 50,842 53,565
“ 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 St., 6,443 13,187
“ 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, 13,581 25,938
Jr., 503 West 39th

St.,
“ 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 St., 48 54
“ Werner, Geo., 344
East 105th St., 41 36
“ 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 Smith, E.,
Falls, 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 Eheman, George,
Springs, 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. Bechtel, Ceo.,
I.,) 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.,
Bridge, 975 1,158
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