“California Vineyardists Want Product Included in Beer Measure on Liberal Basis.”
Despite a hard fight at Washington this week, California vineyard interests apparently met with little success in their efforts to have a satisfactory wine clause included in the Federal regulation permitting the sale of 3.05 per cent beer.
An amendment was added to the beer bill by the Senate, providing for 3.05 per cent wine and fruit juice but wine men state this is of no value to their industry owing to the low alcoholic content permitted.
Telegrams were sent [to] Senators Hiram Johnson and Wm. G. McAdoo protesting against the 3.05 wine and demanding legislation which would permit wine of 10 to 14 per cent. It has not yet been determined whether favorable action on this proposal can be expected.
-Livermore Herald, March 17 1933, page 2
By the early 1930s the Prohibition laws and restrictions started to become more lenient. The reason that Winemakers felt they could not work with the 3.05 percent alcoholic content is fairly easy to understand, at least for myself, since I have taken a wine making class. Pretty much any fruit can be made into an alcoholic beverage. The alcohol percentage depends on the sugar content in the fruit. When grapes ferment, which is basically rotting but slightly more complicated, the sugars turn into alcohol. Fruit has a high sugar content. Most table wines are between 14 and 16% alcohol nowadays. It was probably slightly lower in the early twentieth century. However, it still would have been too high to serve the 3.05% content law. And since fermentation is a natural process, it is much more work to get the alcohol out, and a longer process. I could be wrong, but I am willing to guess they did not de-alcoholize anything.
So, I spent a couple hours at the Livermore Heritage Guild again. I had every intention of going from here into local Democratic and Republican platforms in 1932 and 1933, but I was in a hurry for no reason and took my flash drive out of the computer without ejecting it first, so my articles got lost. I wanted to raise my hands to the heavens and shout, “WHY? WHY ME?” in a ragged voice, but I’m pretty sure that my roommates would not appreciate that, so I silently shouted in my own head with raised hands and bared teeth. I am sure everyone has experienced similar problems. And of course I am unable to go back again until next week. But hopefully next week I will be going in to the Chamber of Commerce to see what kind of records they have on file, and if any conversations were kept regarding prohibition.
As it turns out, I have been looking in all the wrong places for information. Well, not really the wrong places, but the wrong index names. I have been looking for anything under “Prohibition” that is titled, “Concannon,” and anything under the “Concannon” index that is titled, “Prohibition.” I wish that the indexes of the Livermore Herald had articles filed under “Democrat” and “Republican.” I checked, and sadly, it had neither. But the one file that I got that was not completely and entirely messed up was an article about plans to organize a local Women’s Democratic Club.
The organization of a Women’s Democratic Club deserves some background information. Historically, women were strong advocates for Prohibition. This was because many felt as though alcohol was ruining their husbands, children, and families. It made unsafe environments and husbands were known to spend much of the family income at the bar after work, rather than bringing it home to put toward the family. In the Prohibition era, the Republican party supported laws that limited or banned the use of alcohol. In 1932, Democrats ran on a platform that was against these laws, and wanted to repeal them. So, if you have not put the these pieces of information together already, I will do it for you: Women= for prohibition, Democrats= against prohibition. Women+Democrats= confusion… or the changing of minds of women, at least in the local area.
“Action to Legalize Wine Delayed”
No action to legalize wine having a greater alcoholic content than 3.2 per cent will be taken at the present session of Congress, following an 11-9 vote Monday by the House Ways and Means Committee postponing such action until the next regular session, or a special session if one be called.
The bill under consideration had been introduced by Representative Lea of Santa Rosa, and provided for the sale of naturally fermented wines. Some Eastern members of the committee maintained that it was so worded as to favor California wines.
At a hearing before the committee last week Prohibition Director A.V. Dalrymple urged the legalization of wine.
--Livermore Herald, June 16 1933, page 5
So, as you can see from this article, there was an 11-9 vote. Congress was almost split down the middle about the repeal of Prohibition. The tide was changing. Though this action to legalize wine did not pass, it shows a step in the right direction. Shortly before either of these articles were printed, the March 3 1933 paper released an article announcing the feasibility of repealing prohibition, focusing on vineyardists in the Livermore Valley. H.W. Wrightson of the California Vineyardists’ Association was quoted, “Congress, by devious ways, is trying to modify the Volstead Act so as to make light wines legal under the Eighteenth Amendment. If they succeed it may give us partial relief, but the vineyard industry needs a larger measure of relief if beneficial effects are to be felt by all growers.”
I have always found the Prohibition era an interesting time. The idea of banning alcohol has always confused me. I just never understood it. But before I learned that Concannon stayed open during Prohibition, and was one of some ridiculously small number (something like 5) to actually stay open during that time, I had never really thought about the impact of Prohibition on specific industries. I mean, how short sighted was that? The 18th Amendment almost completely shut down an entire industry. My thoughts are, people should be able to drink if they wish to. Of course, if someone is an alcoholic they should seek help, but having a glass of wine with dinner should not be illegal. The right wine can really compliment a dish. Europe has such a wine culture. They drink wine all of the time, and most Europeans (in my experience, at least) can pair an excellent wine with the perfect dish. I have a friend from Sweden who is my go-to person when it comes to which wine to serve with what meal. Wine is used for religious purposes, to compliment the pallet, and even for cooking. Anyway, I just had to point that out, since that is what goes through my head every time I even think about this topic. That is probably what keeps me so enthralled.
So, on Monday I have a meeting with Jim Concannon, the grandson of the man who started the winery. I am hoping that he will allow me to videotape it so that I can have an oral history to give to the Livermore Heritage Guild, and also so that I can put it up here. Or at least pieces of it, depending on how long it is. Guess I had better figure out my questions. If you are reading this and have any questions you think I should ask him, please write them in the comments section.
