By Michael O’Bryant
Special to the NKyTribune
“This is the intent of the act. The public will be made to know exactly the kind of whiskey they buy and drink. It injures no man’s lawful business because it insists on the statement of truth of the label” – William Howard Taft, December 26, 1907
Since the early days of whiskey production in Ohio and Kentucky, rectifiers—companies that bought distilled whiskey and altered it with additives—have been part of the industry. The practice emerged because much of the whiskey being distilled by small stills was inconsistent and flawed. So, many Cincinnati whiskey retail and wholesalers began to blend and refine the spirits they purchased in bulk from Kentucky distilleries. As the industry grew, Cincinnati businesses became experts in blending and flavoring whiskey, making the city one of the leading producers and distributors of whiskey in the nation.
• • • • • • •
See: Our Rich History: Aging or rectifying whiskey
See also: Our Rich History Old Pepper trademark case
• • • • • • •
In contrast to Cincinnati’s rectifying business, in Kentucky the more expensive and time-consuming process of aging spirits in wood was more common. The two models of producing whiskey were on a collision course.
The debate, which would last for decades, came down to what constituted whiskey. Traditional distillers, which produced bourbon and rye aged in charred oak barrels, were on one side of the debate, while on the other side were the rectifiers, who took neutral spirits and added colorings and flavorings then sold it as whiskey. In the middle were consumers who seemed to accept whiskey as any spirit, whether aged in wood or rectified.
Like many business debates in the United States where large amounts of money were involved, the government was asked to step in and decide the argument. The 1893 House Judiciary subcommittee investigating the practices of the Whiskey Trust first heard from the viewpoint of James Veazey, who ended his testimony by advising the government to make blending illegal.
The hearings led to the breaking up, at least temporally, of the Whiskey Trust and to the 1897 Bottled in Bond act. It was the first major regulatory legislation of whiskey. The act mandated that bourbon whiskey must be bottled at 100-proof in a single distilling season, then aged for a minimum of four years.
The next major legislation to affect whiskey production was the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. This act, which denied the use of the word whiskey in branding to all liquor except for United States “straight whiskey” (aged), narrowed what had been commonly understood by consumers and the industry for 150 years as whiskey.
The Pure Food and Drug Act denied the use of the term “whiskey” to rectified whiskey, as well as to imports such as Scotch, Irish, and Canadian whiskies. Straight whiskey distillers began to label their products with “Pure Food,” but the debate continued.
The act also stated that rectified whiskey should be labeled as “imitation,” a “compound” or as a “blend.” However, for whiskey to be called a blend, it had to be a mixture of like ingredients, but according to the Secretary of Agriculture, colorings and flavoring were not like ingredients. Rectifiers, knowing that consumers would buy a blend but might not buy a compound—and definitely would not buy an imitation—were faced with losing sales. So, they resorted to a common strategy–they lobbied—and their efforts were successful. The Secretary of Agriculture changed his mind and supported the rectifiers.
Of course, this didn’t end the debate. The chief chemist of the Department of Agriculture had strong views on the subject. He bypassed the Secretary and organized a corrective demonstration for President Theodore Roosevelt and the attorney general, as James Veazy had done before. Both men opposed the rectifiers, resolving the issue.
But it wasn’t.
Pressure now came from Congressmen and Senators representing those districts and states where rectifying was an important business. Unable to come to an effective agreement, Congress turned to William Howard Taft, who was now president, to render a final verdict. Always the lover of a good legal argument, Taft agreed and assigned his solicitor general to study the issue. The solicitor general held hearings, gathered evidence, and produced a 1,200-page record. Taft thought the findings were too complex, so he handled the issue himself. After nearly a year, Taft published his final ruling on December 26, 1907. It was front-page news throughout the nation.
Taft decided that the term whiskey should not be redefined but made clearer. “The way to remedy this evil is not to attempt to change the meaning and scope of the term ‘whiskey’ accorded it for one hundred years, and narrow it to include only straight whiskey,” he wrote. “The way to do it is to require a branding connection with the use of the term ‘whiskey’ which will indicate just what kind of whiskey the package contains.” His opinion also stated that the branding could be accompanied by “aged in wood” and identified as “Bourbon” or “rye.” He went on to write that, “The term ‘straight whiskey’ is well understood in the trade and well understood by consumers. There is no reason, therefore, why those who make straight whiskey may not have the brand upon their barrels of straight whiskey.”
In making his decision, Taft was simply explaining that while everyone knew what is meant by “straight whiskey,” it didn’t give the makers of it an exclusive right to the term “whiskey.” He ruled that any spirit made from grain could be called whiskey and adding coloring or flavoring didn’t take its name away. But, he added, the producers of rectified, redistilled, or neutral whiskies should be honest about the additives.
Therefore, his opinion stated that every bottle labeled as whiskey must include a description of its additives. If the whiskey was rectified, distilled, or a neutral sprit, its principal ingredients must be labeled. One exception was if molasses were used, it could not be called whiskey as sometimes was done. Molasses made it rum.
Anticipating complaints from those who made whiskey of rectified, redistilled or neutral spirits, Taft wrote that they “cannot complain if, to prevent further frauds, they are required to use a brand which shall show exactly the kind of whiskey they are selling.” Taft’s findings are still the basic law today.
Michael O’Bryant was born in Dayton, Kentucky but grew up in Mason, Ohio, when it was still a farming community and the first day of rabbit hunting season was an unofficial local holiday. Earning his undergraduate degree in Education from the University of Cincinnati, he taught at Mason Public Schools, where he was asked to inaugurate their junior high football program. He later moved to the high school level, teaching English and Social Studies. O’Bryant took temporary leave to attend Morehead State University where he served as an assistant track coach and earned his MA. Returning to Mason, he taught and served as an administrative assistant and Social Studies Curriculum Leader. For more than twenty years, he has worked in publishing, including Orange Frazer Press in Wilmington, Ohio, as well as the textbook company Cengage Publishing.
Paul A. Tenkotte, PhD is Editor of the “Our Rich History” weekly series and Professor of History at Northern Kentucky University. To browse more than ten years of past columns, click here. Tenkotte also serves as Director of the ORVILLE Project (Ohio River Valley Innovation Library and Learning Engagement). For more information see https://orvillelearning.org/. He can be contacted at tenkottep@nku.edu.