NEWS EDITION VOL.
13, N o . 19
INDUSTRIAL AND E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY VOL. 27,
CONSECUTIVE
OCTOBER
10, 1935
NO. 3 4
Published by the American Chemical Society Harrison E. Howe, Editor Publication Office: Easton, P a . · Editorial Office: Room 706, Mills Building, Washington, D . C. · Telephone: National 0848 Cable: Jiechem (Washington) · Advertising Department: 332 West 42nd Street, New York, Ν . Υ. · Telephone: Bryant 9-4430
Industrial Alcohol In R e t r o s p e c t a n d Prospect J A M E S P . MCGOVERN, General Counsel, T h e Industrial Alcohol Institute, Inc.
A
NY change in our fundamental and basic law—the Constitution of the United States—reflects issues of major importance and seriously affects our civil and political life. Perhaps noth ing more engrossing has come to the sur face from the deeper currents controlling national welfare since the Civil War than the popular sentiment manifested in the adoption of the Eighteenth and T w e n t y first Amendments. In that regard, it is interesting to note that the problem of con trolling intoxicating liquors, originating in local ordinances of hamlets and towns and ultimately taken over by the Government under the Eighteenth Amendment, is now being relegated by the Twenty-first Amendment t o the source from which it came through state and local legislation. Regardless of the varied views on t h e subject of prohibition, the attempt of t h e Eederal Government, pursuant t o t h e Eighteenth Amendment, to correct condi tions growing out of the abuse of alcoliolic beverages, more than anything else, awakened the people to the realization o f its supreme powers in fields of human activities over which it had no previous •control. T h e e f f e c t w h i c h legislation regulating intoxicating liquors has exerted i n bringing home to everyone the distinc tion between the powers exercised by t h e ^Federal Government and the states—in other words, the great question of "state zrights"—is not generally appreciated or -understood and would make an interesting topic for discussion. During the period of national prohibi tion under the Eighteenth Amendment, alcohol, as a chemical, and its manifold *ises as such—that is to say, industrial alcohol—were recognized and protected i n state laws and in Title I I I and Section -4 of Title II of the National Prohibition -Act. I n that era several of the states adopted laws which conformed to the Vol stead A c t ; but with Title I I I of the latter statute, and the close supervision of t h e IFederal Government exercised under such tàtle, industrial alcohol received its full aneasure of recognition not, however, ^without many anxious moments. I n deed, industrial alcohol, including both ethyl alcohol as such and denatured alcohol, -was safeguarded and promoted despite complications and uncertainties arising in connection with the prohibition of i n toxicating beverages. This could not tiave been accomplished without t h e
J A M B S P.
MCGOVERN
provisions of the aforesaid Title III and the appreciation of its responsibilities and purposes by those then in charge of its enforcement. All doubts as t o the effect of the Twenty-first Amendment on Title III have been definitely dispelled, not only by court decisions involving questions relating t o industrial alcohol, but also b y the recent legislation of the Congress, especially the new act entitled "Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act," approved August 27, 1935, wherein Titles I and II of the National Prohibition Act are expressly repealed and certain provisions made which are calculated to assist in the carrying on and enforcement of Title III. This manifestation by the Congress of its confidence in the purposes and objects of Title III is most gratifying and should have a lasting and wholesome effect. State Control T h e adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment, repealing national prohibition, came with unexpected suddenness. Several of the states, however, had prepared for t h e anticipated emergency and repealed or modified their constitutional restrictions and adopted local control laws to be effective o n repeal. I n these laws industrial alcohol was, in a measure, recognized and protected; the following will suffice for illustrations: I n Wisconsin (act approved February 2, 1933) it was provided that such act would not apply to alcohol "intended for use and 381
used" in the manufacture of "denatured alcohol produced and used pursuant to Acts of Congress and regulations promulgated thereunder; patent, proprietary, medicinal, pharmaceutical, antiseptic, and toilet preparations; flavoring extracts, syrups, and food products; scientific, chemical, mechanical, and industrial products." In Indiana (act approved March 1, 1933) it was provided that no section of the act was to be construed "to prohibit the manufacture, possession and sale of alcohol for medicinal, scientific or mechanical purposes" or the manufacture and sale of denatured alcohol. In Massachusetts (act approved December 4, 1933, as amended) provision was made for the issuance of licenses covering the manufacture, sale, etc., of alcohol for mechanical, manufacturing, and chemical puri n the "District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act," adopted by the Congress January 24, 1934 {after repeal), the National Prohibition Act was expressly repealed, "insofar as it affects the manufacture, sale and possession in the District of Columbia *** with the exception of Title III, and Section 4 of Title II insofar as it affects denatured alcohol." Here was a recognition b y the Congress, as early as January 24, 1934, of Title III, and Section 4 of Title II as it related t o denatured alcohol, and the provisions of such title and section were specifically continued in effect. On repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, December 5, 1933, the legislatures of nearly all the states began to enact new and modify old laws. Control of intoxicating liquors as such having been taken from the Federal Government, it became necessary to safeguard industrial alcohol in the various states, and the entire industry, aroused t o the task, exerted every effort to have incorporated in these new laws suitable provisions to that end. The results, in the main, have been very gratifying under the circumstances, particularly in view of the haste in which the states proceeded. The "District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act," adopted as above stated, January 24, 1934, contained the following clause : Sec. 8. No provision of this Act shall apply to alcohol intended for use in the manufacture and sale of any of the following
382
INDUSTRIAL AM) Κ Ν < ; ΐ \ Ε Ε Μ \ < ;
CHKMISTRY
when they are unfit fur beverage purposes, Model C l a u s e namely: Although material progress h a d been made in state laws theretofore enacted (a) Denatujv-'d alcohol produced and relating t o industrial alcohol, it w a s vitally used pursuant to Acts of Congress and necessary to preserve t h e gains accom regulations x>roniulgated thereunder; plished and bring about improvement (fe) Patent, proprietary, medicinal, wherever possible. ' T o this end a "model pharmaceutical, antiseptic, and toilet clause" was prepared, calculât oil to \ reparations ; remedy uncertainties arising on construc(.r) Flavoring extracts, syrups, and tion of language in prior laws, which it is food products; believed was of substantial assistance in (
