Brewers' grains are not allowed to be used for the cows that yield milk and butter for Copenhagen, the capital of the country that leads the world in dairy farming. "_The closing of the breweries can alone remove the objectionable conditions inseparable from the beer traffic_" CHAPTER X. BREWERS ASSAULT DISTILLERS TO HIDE THEIR OWN CRIMES A nation-wide campaign has been set in motion by the brewers to beguile the public by assaulting the distillers. Distillers rarely sell direct to saloons as the brewers do. Distillers do not own or back saloons. Distillers are therefore not responsible for the lawless conditions of which the public complains--nor were they ever accused of stuffing the ballot box. Whiskey leaves the distillery in an unadulterated condition, while beer is drugged at the brewery. The average beer drinker consumes more alcohol than the average whiskey drinker. The National Advocate (New York) maintains that "beer is a greater peril to manhood, home and society than whiskey ever has been or can be." Are the attacks upon the distillers merely a ruse to conceal the fact that officers, directors and thousands of stockholders of the largest brewing companies in all parts of the country are either wholesale or retail whiskey dealers, or saloon keepers, or both? If the brewers are sincere in their promise to divorce beer from whiskey, why have they not closed their own whiskey stores? Why have they not placed a ban upon the sale of whiskey in all the saloons which they own and operate themselves? Why have they not forbidden the sale of whiskey in all saloons? What is there to prevent it? Is it not a fact that, with few exceptions, the so-called owners of saloons, not operated by brewers themselves, are merely slaves of the brewers, the latter owning either the property or the lease, the license and a chattel mortgage upon the fixtures in the place? The truth is that a saloon keeper can not exist if his business should be restricted to the sale of beer--and the closing of a saloon means a loss to the brewer. I quote here again from an editorial written by Mr. J. Frank Hanly, former Governor of Indiana, which appeared in the National Enquirer (Indianapolis), of which he is the editor, as follows: "When the writer of this editorial was a candidate for the nomination for Governor of the State of Indiana it was not the distilling interests of the State, but the brewers, that sought to wring from him a promise that in consideration for his nomination he should, if elected, permit no temperance legislation during his term. It was the brewing interests of Indiana, not the distillers, that sought on the eve of election, after his nomination in spite of their opposition, to extort a like promise as the price of his election.