The Hero of the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897

Transcript

The Hero of the 1897 Bottled-in-Bond Act

A trade circular, issued by Mr. John D. Hounihan, of Buffalo, N. Y., lately came into The Cincinnati Enquirer’s hands. It is not exactly adapted for general circulation, and belongs to that class of literature which the recipients are supposed to keep under lock and key — not because of any indelicate allusions to the anatomy of the human frame, but because Mr. Hounihan assumes that he is addressing liquor-dealers alone, and hence makes no bones of mentioning the passwords, signs, grips, and secret work generally of the sample-room neighborhood.

He says:

“I have written a book on the process of making whisky, brandy, gin, ale, porter, lager beer, and everything pertaining to the business. The recipes are so simple that a boy 10 years old can make in your cellar or back room twenty gallons of Bourbon whisky inside of an hour, and you may place it side by side with the genuine, and you can not tell the difference.”

“My directions for imitating Bourbon whisky, Irish whisky, and French brandy are the best in existence. You may put my imitations and the genuine side by side, and the taste judge will pronounce them the same. Besides, they can be made to present the appearance of being twenty years old.”

“It is a fact known to a great many liquor dealers that half of the whisky sold in this country never passed through a still, for it is nearly all adulterated more or less.”

As reference I could mention many of the first hotel bars of Maryland and Pennsylvania now using my book as a guide; but, considering the nature of the book, I will not mention names. This precious book is not a bad-looking little volume, and talks out in meeting on the title page in this style:

As old whisky-barrels are more valuable than those that come from the cooper’s hands, some enterprising citizen may go into the business of instantly metamorphosing young and lusty casks into hoary patriarchs. To do this dissolve in three gallons of water three pounds of sulphuric acid and one pound of sulphate of iron. Wash your barrel with this mixture on the outside, and in a few hours you will have as rusty and venerable as though they had lain in a warehouse for forty years.

This description of how to pass off a new barrel as old was devious enough, but it paled in comparison to what was going on inside a number of late 19th century barrels. This June 1895 syndicated article titled "What Is Drank?” must have come to a shock to some. The collective wisdom of the era suggested that rectified whiskey was purified spirit that was distilled and freed from impurities. To hear the cavalier attitude of this concoctor of poisonous spirits probably had more than a few eyeballs looking with a mix of fear and disgust at the tainted dram in their hands. 

But as Whiskey legends have told us, this era of rectified whiskey rabble was about to meet its match in the man in the shiny black top hat, grey beard, and rimless spectacles and the whiskey legislation that would soon put them out of business.

Meet, Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor, Jr., a Kentucky distiller, former banker and mayor of Frankfort (KY), as well as a descendant of both President James Madison and old rough and ready President Zachary Taylor. Known for his work with W. A. Gaines the maker of Old Crow, his partnership with George T. Stagg in the ownership of the O.F.C. distillery (later known as Buffalo Trace), and his development of the castle like Old Taylor Distillery (today known as Castle & Key),  was a master at promoting and marketing his bourbons. 

And having put in the time, money and effort that was required in the 19th Century to promote and market his product, and having unscrupulous “rectifiers,” undoing all of his good works, he knew he had to find a way to keep his customer’s confidence by differentiating his product from all the riff raff. 

So he joined with a former presidential hopeful and current Secretary of the Treasury John G. Carlisle and they began to lobby Congress. Their goal was to get a set of legal regulations that would allow distillers to create pure whiskey under a protective set of bottling, production, and advertising rules. 

They were eyeing the practice of government bonding, a practice that had been available to them for years. But it had very loose guidelines for product quality and labeling. And they wanted to propose something that would guarantee the quality of any product that followed the guidelines.

The resulting legislation was to be called the Bottled-In-Bond Act. Under it, what was bottled / had to be produced by the same distiller, at the same distillery, during the same distilling season, aged for at least four years, unadulterated with anything other than water for proofing, and it must be bottled at exactly 100 proof (or 50% alcohol), all under government supervision, including the use of government bonded warehouses. In addition, the label also had to identify the distillery where the whiskey was distilled and where it was bottled, and it required a green wrapped sticker over the cork.

Those that took advantage of it, would have all the proof they needed to show they had the purest product available on the market. 

It’s a great story, but is it true?

In central Kentucky, the story of the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 and the part Col. E.H. Taylor played in it is legendary. And there are few distilleries that ignore telling this tale - especially the one’s Taylor had involvement in — Buffalo Trace and Castle & Key.

Called the “founding father of the modern Bourbon industry” by the Buffalo Trace website, it mentions his fight for the passage of the Bottled-in-Bond Act and promotion of modern techniques. The Castle & Key website is a little more laid back and more touts his design of the unique Scottish castle inspired distillery he built.

Search of popular information websites and AI, bring their own opinions about Taylor’s involvement in the Act. 

When asking Google’s Gemini AI who wrote the Bottled-in-Bond Act, it’s quite emphatic: The Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 was primarily championed and pushed through Congress by Colonel Edmund Haynes Taylor, Jr., along with crucial advocacy from Colonel James E. Pepper and Secretary of the Treasury John G. Carlisle. It was enacted to combat rampant adulteration in the whiskey industry. 

Purpose: To guarantee the quality, purity, and age of whiskey by having it bottled under government supervision.

Key Figures: E.H. Taylor, Jr. is considered the driving force behind the legislation, aiming to protect the integrity of straight whiskey.

Legislation: It was passed by the U.S. Federal Government on March 3, 1897.

Context: It was a response to unregulated "rectifiers" who often added dangerous substances to whiskey.

Well, that should make me feel good. After all, that’s the story I told in my third ever episode of Whiskey Lore.

Then I asked Grok AI: Did Colonel E.H. Taylor Jr write the Bottled-in-Bond Act?  No, Colonel E.H. Taylor, Jr. did not write the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897.  It was a federal law, not a document personally authored by any one individual outside of the congressional process. However, Taylor—often called the "Father of Modern Bourbon"—played a major role in advocating for it. In the late 19th century, the whiskey industry faced rampant adulteration (e.g., rectifiers adding harmful substances like iodine or even formaldehyde to cheap spirits), which harmed consumers and honest distillers. Taylor, along with other straight whiskey producers like Colonel James E. Pepper, lobbied tirelessly for stricter standards and consumer protections. He was instrumental in pushing for the bill's passage, collaborating with figures such as Treasury Secretary John G. Carlisle and lawmakers to champion higher quality and integrity in bourbon production. This advocacy helped make the Bottled-in-Bond Act the United States' first major consumer protection law in the food and beverage sector. It established strict rules still in effect today: a spirit must be produced at one distillery in one distilling season, aged at least four years in a federally bonded warehouse, bottled at exactly 100 proof (50% ABV), and contain no additives beyond water for proof adjustment. That's why modern bourbons like those in Buffalo Trace's E.H. Taylor, Jr. line (including the popular Bottled-in-Bond expression) honor him by adhering to those exact standards—many are aged in warehouses he helped build or innovate.In short: Taylor didn't draft or "write" the act as legislation, but his efforts were crucial to its creation and enactment.

Okay, evidence is building:

So I asked ChatGPT: Who wrote the Bottled-in-Bond Act: The Bottled-in-Bond Act was written and introduced by John G. Carlisle, who was serving as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury at the time. The act was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law in 1897 by President William McKinley. The law was created to guarantee the quality and authenticity of American whiskey by regulating its production and labeling.

Now, of course, if you’ve been listening to this podcast from the very beginning, you know I covered the story behold Bottled-in-Bond in my third episode in Season One. And those of you who have stuck with me through the years know, I did a revision on that episode about a year ago because the first one was so full of marketing lore, I was embarrassed to have people listening to it and being misinformed. The revision basically left the food adulteration story in tact, but then when we got to Colonel Taylor, scratched the record and started over again with the real story.

Well, I’ve learned more since then and dove into this on an even more granular level, so today, in honor of the anniversary of the signing of this act into law by President Grover Cleveland, not William McKinley, ChatGPT, you’ll hear the entire journey to Bottled-in-Bond with all its twist and turns, and by the end of this episode, you’ll know who the real hero was behind the Bottled-in-Bond Act, the truth behind why it was written, and why it almost didn’t pass into law.

THE REAL STORY OF BOTTLED-IN-BOND

On November 7, 1895 - A Nashville American newspaper headline teased “Internal Revenue Commissioner's Report Will Contain Recommendations of Especial Interest to the Liquor Trade.”

It referenced a message placed in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, Joseph S. Miller’s annual report that stated:

It is noted that a large proportion of all liquors imported into the United States is in bottles or other small packages…whereas all distilled spirits exported must, in accordance with law, be in the distillers’ casks, each of not less than 10 gallons capacity.

The attention of this office has repeatedly been called to this discrimination against the products of American distillers, and it has been urged that if spirits were allowed to be bottled in bond, each bottle to have affixed thereto an engraved stamp bearing the signature of the collector, a large export trade would be secured.

The cost of preparing and affixing stamps to be borne by the Government has heretofore been an insuperable objection to the adoption of the proposition.

This office, however, recommends the passage of an act authorizing the bottling of spirits in bond if the expense of preparing and affixing the stamps is otherwise provided for. Dated June 30, 1895.

Now, if you’re saying to yourself, this doesn’t sound like a man looking for a consumer protection law, you would be correct. And if you said, where is E.H. Taylor in this message, you’ve asked a very important question.

And rather than stringing you along teasing you with a mystery - I’ll come right and and say it. Neither Treasury Secretary John G. Carlisle nor Col. Edmund H. Taylor had anything to do with proposing a bottling bill. And the idea it was proposed to save the reputation of Kentucky Bourbon’s from rectifiers is 100% bunk. 

According to the article Commissioner Miller’s “recommendation will be made with a view of increasing our export trade in bottle goods. The present law requires all whisky exported in bottles to pay the Internal revenue tax of $1.10 per gallon. This, of course, acts as a bar to the exportation of the well-known brands of case goods.” He went on to note that “each bottle shall have affixed across its neck an internal revenue stamp of small denomination bearing the signature of the Collector, thus giving a guarantee to the purchaser that the whisky in the bottle was put up under the supervision of the Collector and is the genuine article and just what it is represented to be. It is claimed by internal revenue officials that such a provision in the law would give a great impetus to our export trade in bottle goods. Its effect would be appreciably felt by the bottling trade, the box-makers, the cork-dealers and others; and in a very little while the United States would command the trade of the world in beverage whiskies. The proposition to stamp each bottle of whisky with a Government seal meets with the hearty approval of the distillers, and they would not object to paying a small tax sufficient to cover the cost of Government inspection. It is the Government stamp on bottled Canadian whisky that gives that article a standing in this country. While the Canadian trade is gradually increasing, owing to our liberal laws, the distillers in this country are practically shut out from exporting their goods to Canada, and thus getting a foothold in that market. The Canadians are afraid to compete with American beverage whiskies, and in order to check the importation of American spirits, the Canadian law requires that all packages exported from the United States to Canada shall be not less than 100 imperial gallons. This law is a hardship on the American distiller who wants to get his goods into Canada, and in order to export whisky to that country, he must go to the expense of having constructed casks of special size for the Canadian trade. And, in addition to that, he must get a special permit from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to change the packages already in the warehouse from that of American size, forty-five gallons, to the Canadian size. The difference between an imperial gallon and a United States gallon is two pounds. It is intimated that at the coming session of Congress the Internal Revenue Bureau will suggest some retaliatory legislation that will cause Canada to treat the American distiller as the United States treats the Canadian distiller. In other words, the American dealer shall have the right to export case goods to Canada, which cannot now be done under existing law. Last year we imported from Canada 63,969 gallons of Canadian whisky, the value of which was $121,064; this year we imported from Canada 138,027 gallons, more than double the amount imported last year, and the value of this year's importation was $261,513.”

The article closes by stating: “This is of particular importance to the distillers of Tennessee and Kentucky, and if they will push the matter there is no question but that Congress will give the distillers the relief asked. Our Canadian cousins may not like the retaliatory legislation, but Canada offers a good market for our beverage whiskies.”

So therein lies the perfect argument for a bottled-in-bond act, one directional trade that was hurting Internal Revenue collections, thanks to laws that disadvantaged American distillers. And while the mention of trusted genuine whiskey is mentioned, it was a side benefit, not the purpose of the bill—the absence of rectifiers and adulteration in this article is palpable. 

So now that the problem as been introduced to the public, what’s next? 

Enter the Kentuckian who was ready to take on this challenge full-steam - not Col. E.H. Taylor, not John G. Carlisle, instead the man time forgot—Joseph S. Miller’s predecessor in the job as Internal Revenue Commissioner, the now U.S. Congressman from the 5th District of Kentucky, Walter Evans. 

WHO WAS WALTER EVANS

Born near Glasgow, Kentucky in 1842, he attended school in Harrodsburg, KY before moving to Hopkinsville. Serving as a deputy county clerk, he took up arms for the Union when the Civil War erupted, serving as a Lieutenant and attaining the rank of Captain. Upon his discharge, he returned to Hopkinsville, became a member of the bar, joined the Republican party, became a state representative and then state senator, before an unsuccessful run for governor. In May 1883, the great reformer President Chester A. Arthur appointed him as the 10th Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. Newspapers took a confused tone, stating “he is not the man who it was generally thought would be appointed, and hence there is a great deal of speculation and surprise. Nobody seems to doubt that the appointment is a good one, but the truth is, only a few know anything about him.” But those who vouched for him said he was a strong man and he was apparently personally picked for the job by President Arthur, who said he wanted as independent a candidate for the office as he could find and one with plenty of character. Patronage and the scandals of President Grant’s administration and the notorious Whiskey Ring still lingered, and Arthur has made the decision to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the late President Garfield, in cleaning out the grifters from the federal government. To his own party is was a strong man, to his opposition he was a machine politician and not to be trusted. But his time in the position was fairly quiet. After two years, he returned to his law practice in Louisville, until persuaded to run for Congress, where he took his seat in March 1895. 

When he got to work on the bill is unknown. But it turns out, his bill wasn’t the first attempt to create a bottling act. That honor goes to Joseph Edwin Washington, a House Democrat from Robertson County, and the 6th District of Tennessee. What Evans created, in essence, was the same bill, yet Evan’s quick rise up to a position on the House Ways and Means committee, and his relationship with Commissioner Miller, gave his bill the inside edge. He also happened to be working on other alcohol related bills including one meant to clarify an August 1894 act to allow the transfer of bonded spirits between warehouses. When it came time to appoint a subcommittee for review of the bill, Evans was appointed chairman.

And as expected, on April 28th, the subcommittee reported favorably on the bill and it was sent to the full committee where it was also approved. Now it was up to the House of Representatives to debate the bill on the floor. The Louisville Courier noted “if the Bottling Bill…is passed…it will have an effect to reduce the amount of spirits now held in bond, by increasing the export trade of beverage whiskey, [placing] American distillers on the same footing as the handlers of Canadian club whisky.”

When the bill passed the House on May 19th, the Detroit Free-Press reiterated the reason for the bottling bill. This wasn’t any food adulteration bill, “The real reason for the passage of the bill known as the bottling-in-bond bill by the house is that the Kentucky distillers find something of the sort necessary in order to enable them to compete with Hiram Walker & Sons. At the present time, the only whisky which comes into the American market in bottles with a government guarantee of purity is Walker’s Canadian Club. It has a label pasted over the mouth of the bottle, under government supervision, stating the age and proof of the liquor. The bottling bill passed by the house will enable the Kentucky distillers to bottle their product, after it reached the age of four years, under revenue officer’s inspection, and when labeled in the way prescribed, will enable dealers to sell bottled good which will have a reliable guaranty of quality, a thing not now attainable in bottled whisky. The necessity of the measure to enable Americans to compete with Mr. Walker’s wet goods was explained by ex-Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Walter Evans, who is now a member of the House from Louisville.” 

So from Evans own mouth, this was all about Canadian Club’s export market advantage, so when did the discussion of rectifiers and adulteration enter the argument for the bill? The first mention in the press came from House Republican David Grant Colson of the 11th district of Kentucky, who suggested the bill would rid the world of “spurious liquids sold under the name of Kentucky whisky.” Colson wasn’t a whiskey man, just a proud Kentucky lawyer from Pikeville in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky. While his pride in his home spirit was well placed, he would remain the lone voice against fake Bourbon for the time being. This was still an export bill and Canadian Club was the juggernaut kicking American whiskey’s tail due to crippling export rules.

All eyes turned to the U.S. Senate, where scrutiny would begin in the Finance Committee. There was some doubt as to its passage onto the Senate floor, as Kentucky Senator George Vest was sympathetic to opposition raised by petitions from Missouri. If a Kentuckian voted against it, what chance would it have? To make matters worse, the chairman of the subcommittee reviewing the bill, Rhode Island Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich delayed the convening of his committee, leading to the belief he would stall the bill until it was finally killed off at the end of the session. Up from Kentucky came State Senator Charles J. Bronston, known as the “Red Fox” for his flaming red hair and heated temper, and distiller James E. Pepper, the ward of Col. E.H. Taylor. Whether Taylor pushed for this visit by his mentee is unknown. As the Washington Post reported it, their interest in the bill was its “safeguards about spirits in bottles” and its object “to protect against adulteration.” The Lexington Herald remarked, “this bill is of special interest to the distillers of Kentucky as it is to the consumers of bottled beverage whisky.” Clearly the discussions in the Bluegrass State were ramping up over the adulteration issue by early June.

But talk of the bill died out as the fall promised to be a hard fought campaign for control of Congress and the Presidency. One of the biggest issues was gold vs silver and the standard by which America would judge its currency. Evans won reelection and the country chose a switch back to a Republican president in William McKinley, a fan of tariffs and anything that benefitted American business. The larger Kentucky distillers who were starting to suffer from a market flooded with whiskey hoped the Evans release valve would solve their issues.

But as Christmas approached, the distillers got a lump of coal in their stockings, from those pesky rectifiers of whiskey. As Senator Aldrich began to move forward with meetings of his subcommittee, the National Wholesale Liquor Dealer’s Association lobbied for amendments to the Evans bill. On December 8th, a committee of wholesalers met with the Kentucky Distillers Association in Louisville, providing details of their amendments. When the distillers labeled the amendments as ruinous to them, the meeting closed and the liquor dealers headed back east. The liquor dealers decided to take their chances with the Senator’s Finance Committee. The problem was, if amendments were made, it would have to go back to the House, where passage was in doubt. Worse yet, time was running out on the legislative session.  

It appeared Senator Aldrich was interested in a compromise between the liquor dealers and distillers. After attorneys for the liquor dealers petitioned the committee for a hearing, it was placed on the calendar for January 7th, where both sides could make their cases for and against the amendments. Tennessee representative Washington, the originator of the original bill warned, “any attempt to incumber the bill with amendments in the Senate would endanger the bill. It is to the interest of the distillers and the consumers of whisky that the bill pass in its present shape without amendment.”

What amendments were being debated is unknown, but the statement by Rep Washington about “consumers” signaled the liquor dealers were carving out a piece of the pie and adulteration would go from a Kentucky marketing to a life or death situation in regards to the bill.

Incoming Commissioner Forman piped up on Christmas Day revealing his interest in the bill’s passage. “In his opinion, the bottling of whiskey in bond will have a tendency to increase our export trade in case goods and it will also displace Canadian beverage whiskey, which has quite a run in the country simply because it has the stamp of the Canadian Government, which is considered by the consumers as a guarantee of the puberty of the whiskey.” He reminded readers, it would “add to the revenues of the Government.”

Over 13 months, the Treasury never changed its tune. This was about the export market and the revenue it could raise. It was a critical source of revenue for the government, who has lost the power to tax individuals several years earlier when the Income Tax was declared unconstitutional. Whiskey taxes and tariffs fueled the government.

When the 7th arrived, distiller Thomas H. Sherley of Louisville and John B. Thompson of Harrodsburg spoke for the distillers, while Isaac Wolfe Bernheim, part owner of Bernheim Bros wholesalers, E.L. Snyder, president of the National Wholesale Dealers Association, and Angelo Meyer of Pennsylvania, spoke for the liquor dealers. The distillers explained this was all about granting them the privilege of bottling their goods in bonds for export under a Government guaranty of purity and exempting the goods for export from taxation. “The bill,” said Mr. Berheim, “is intended solely to benefit the distillers, principally those of Kentucky. It is a sham, and it is only intended to drive Canadian whisky out of the market.” He and the others further asserted they did not adulterate their whiskey. 

Bernheim seemed to be slinging arrows in the fight of his life. Yet, he was also aware of the mountain he had to climb. He’d already purchased property to begin the construction of the Bernheim Distillery, a decision he made after McKinley won the presidency. In his mind, McKinley’s win and the firm move toward staying on a gold standard meant any financial risks were eased…and the writing was on the wall, in terms of rectifying in a Bottled-in-Bond world. 

The most intense moment of the meeting occurred when distiller Sherley suggested a compromise had been reached by opponents of the bill, to which made Mr. Snyder want to spit nails, but he held his tongue and just claimed that was absurd. After the near bluster, the meeting calmed and by the end, Bernheim’s prophecy seemed to be coming true. The committee ruled favorably and the full committee would take up the bill next. 

Weeks passed before the subcommittee finally made their recommendation. Several amendments were tacked onto the bill. Colonel Sherley and his contingency returned to Washington to fight against any changes. The problem was, any fight against amendments could drag the bill out and with only three weeks in the legislative session and appropriations bills on the docket, this would have to pass through the eye of a needle. Then on January 27th, Kentucky distiller John T. Roach broke the silence as to what the liquor dealers were lobbying for. They wanted the removal of the 8 year bonded tax breaks. Instead, they wanted a one year maximum bonding period, a play that was a 100% benefit to the liquor dealers, while forcing distillers to sell off stocks of young whiskey to avoid paying taxes. It was meant to take away the distiller's aged whiskey advantage and collapse the long-aging advantage. The distillers had no intention of doing that and it would have run counter to the desires of the Internal Revenue to create revenue through exporting a quality product.

Meanwhile, the incoming McKinley administration, manufacturing interests, and tariff supporters praised the Evans Bill as opening up a large export trade, not only to Canada, but to Central and South America. Yet, Senator Aldrich was not moving quickly on getting the bill attention in Finance Committee, and the Louisville Courier announced, “The Aldrich amendments seem to have given the bill its death blow.”

Yet, two days later, the Senate Finance Committee gave the bill its blessing with the amendments attached. As the bill awaited a floor debate and passage in the senate, newspapers began touting aspects of the bill - misrepresenting several aspects of the bill. The biggest being the four year minimum age claim. 

The law itself did not create a mandatory age limit of four years. And this wouldn’t be the only item misinterpreted by current and future advocates of the Bottled-in-Bond Act. The act also didn’t legislate a specific targeted proof. Instead it said distillers “may whenever necessary reduce such spirits as are withdrawn for bottling purposes by the addition of pure water only to one hundred per cent proof for spirits for domestic use, or to not less than eighty per cent proof for spirits for export purposes.” Nowhere does it mandate a bottling proof of exactly 100, but instead says they “may.” What it did was establish permission and a floor. Yet, reporters and some legislators read it as the product should be bottled at exactly 100 proof.

It took an entire month of nailbiting by distillers, but on February 26th, the Senate finally passed the bottling bill, with its amendments. Now, it was back to the house, where an anxious Representative Evans was packing up and down in front of the speaker’s chair trying to get a vote. The next morning, as soon as the journal was read, it came up for a vote and passed, amendments and all. Congressman Evans was so excited, within 15 minutes of the final vote, he had the bill under his arm and was on his way to the Executive Mansion, where President Cleveland could sign it into law.

Unfortunately for Evans, it wouldn’t happen quite that fast. But on the last day of President Cleveland’s administration March 3, 1897, he put pen to paper and “An Act To allow the bottling of distilled spirits in bond” became the law of the land.

Today we tout it as the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897. Yet, we error in placing a date on it. Why? Because there are several differences between what is law today and what was in that original act.

The original Bottled-in-Bond Act mandated spirits (not just whiskey) had to come from one distillery, from one distilling season, stored in a bonded warehouse under government supervision. No adulteration was allowed, except the addition of water, a proper-tax-paid strip stamp was required, and distillery identification on the label. 

It’s interesting to note that, while higher proofs were acceptable, I was unable to find any incidents where distillers strayed from 100 proof. Perhaps 100 proof and 4 years were just easier to remember or a gentleman’s agreement.

The modern Bottled-in-Bond regulations would be firmed up many years later, in 1936, thanks to the Federal Alcohol Administration standards that locked in “at least 4 years” aging and 100 proof. The stamp over the bottle would eventually be removed as a regulation.

So the regulations evolved, as did the marketing, thanks to a little push from journalists and distillers.

George T. Stagg’s OFC was one of the early promoters of the bill, touting it as having Uncle Sam’s Endorsement. “Strange as it may seem, very few whiskies on the market today are able to comply with this law as few of them possess the qualities of purity and proof requisite. There is however once exception and that is the celebrated O.F.C. Whiskey.” It went on to state “this is a most gratifying thing as it now definitely defines what is good whiskey and what is bad. Those who are wise will profit by this hint.” 

There is no doubt, Bernheim’s vision of what was to come was dead on.

The Kansas City Times summed it up saying “the law is a severe blow to the men who make ten-year-old whisky out of alcohol and a few essences. There is no food product, nor any medicinal article that can thus come directly under the supervision of the government. Consumers should, therefore, only buy whisky which is bottled under the government supervision and which bears this internal revenue stamp as proof of this fact. The stamp is the government’s guarantee of the contents of every bottle, both as to age and purity. Consumers should buy no other.”

While distillers sought to put the last nail in the coffin of wholesalers, Internal Revenue Commissioner Forman went right to work on designing stamps and setting up regulations. The Louisville Courier noted "Commissioner Forman’s mail is very heavy these days with letters from distillers who are asking for information of the subject. Treasury officials say the Bottling Bill will largely add to the revenues.”

The Lexington Herald announced in a headline, Bottling Whisky in Bond “a law that will prove a blessing to the distiller as well as the consumer.” It went on to say “it is impossible to tell how much effect it will have upon the whiskey trade of Kentucky, though it is bound to be of the very greatest aid in preventing the adulteration of Kentucky whiskey by the admixture of raw spirits, and its sale as Pure Old Bourbon or Kentucky Made Sour Mash, when the result of the concoction was never inside a Kentucky distillery.” The opening was followed by the complete reprinting of the act, word for word. And while the act talks of bottles, stamps, and exports, yet nothing about adulteration, it didn’t matter. 

The marketing had already begun and the real history of Bottled-in-Bond and its stated purpose, of leveling up competition with Canadian Club—the primary concern until an 11th hour challenge by liquor wholesalers—was quickly forgotten.

And in that, it seems somehow fitting that Colonel E.H. Taylor, a master marketer, got all the credit for the hard work of one Walter Evans.

I’m Drew Hannush and this is Whiskey Lore

Whiskey Lore is a production of Travel Fuels Life LLC

Production, stories, and research by Drew Hannush

Want to read the bottled in bond act as it was written in 1897, look for episode 5 of season 7 at whiskeylore.org/episodes. And fans of Whiskey Flights, never fear, more episodes are on the way, after I get a little history out of my system. But if you’re ready to start planning your summer trips and want to fit in a few choice distillery experiences, where ever you go, make sure to pick up a copy of my new Amazon best selling book, Whiskey Lore’s Travel Guide to Experiencing American Whiskey, within its pages is a guide to over 1,000 distilleries in the United States, laid out state by state, providing you with travel tips, a detailed history of American whiskey, and prep material for getting the most out of your distillery visits. That’s Whiskey Lore’s Travel Guide to Experiencing American Whiskey - Available on Amazon by using the shortcut link whiskeylore.org/americanwhiskey

And once again, Thanks for growing your whisky knowledge along with me, I’m your host Drew Hannush and until next time, cheers and slainte mhath.

Find show notes, resources, and transcripts for this episode at WhiskeyLore.org/episodes