Thursday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 48 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “48,” and this is another weird one, equating personal wealth with whether or not a state is wet or dry. Statistics at the time suggested that in wet states, people’s personal per capita wealth was much greater than people in dry states. I’m not sure about the causation question, or other factors, but it’s certainly an interesting strategy.

Wednesday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 47 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “47,” and details the failed efforts of a prohibition in neighboring Ohio. They quote several prominent citizens in Ohio, including a former U.S. president. Their conclusion. “The fallacy of Prohibition is best shown by the fact that whenever tried it has proven a failure, because it is neither just nor practical.”

Tuesday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 42 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “42,” and is an interesting tactic. It’s simply a reprint of a letter from a federal judge, D.E. Bryant, explaining why in his opinion the local option is a terrible idea and will not work. But here’s my favorite paragraph.

My experience is that prohibitory laws do not prohibit; that they do no good, but to the contrary they are extremely hurtful. There is but one answer to this, and it is that you cannot legislate successfully upon what men regard as a matter of taste. When legislation trenches upon taste the citizen will violate the law with impunity, and in so doing he does not regard himself as a criminal.

Sounds to me like he knew what he was talking about, as that’s pretty much exactly what happened during prohibition.

Monday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 31 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “31,” and again discusses the Brooks High License Law (no relation) and the fallacy of the local option where counties can choose to ban alcohol, even if the rest of the state doesn’t. It’s what became known, after prohibition ended, as dry counties and wet ones, a system that was as bad then as it is today.

Saturday’s ad is another one for the Pennsylvania State Brewers Association, from 1915, No. 19 in series they did from 1915-17 called “Facts Versus Fallacies.” I have no idea how many were done but some of the them are numbered into low triple digits, suggesting there were a lot of them, all in an effort to stop Prohibition from happening and win over support for beer. This ad, marked “19,” and is the earliest one I’ve found so far. The ad talks about the evidence that already existed proving that the enforcement of a prohibition would be impossible. Looking back to 1885 and up the previous thirty years, in southern states where alcohol had been made illegal, the number of illegal distilleries had nearly tripled from when it was legal. Not to mention, the loss of revenue and the additional government expenses for enforcement.