The Hebrew Faith and the Quart-a-Month Law

“The Hebrew Faith and the Quart-a-Month Law: Interesting Correspondence Between Rabbi Julius T. Loeb and Attorney General Thomas H. Peeples,” Herald And News (Newberry, SC), June 5, 1917. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86063758/1917-06-05/ed-1/seq-6/ 

THE HEBREW FAITH AND THE QUART-A-MONTH LAW

Interesting Correspondence Between Rabbi Julius T. Loeb and Attorney General Thomas H. Peeples.

Charleston American.

    Columbia, May 31.—In a letter to Attorney General Thomas H. Peeples, the Rev. Julius T. Loeb, rabbi of Berith-Shalom congregation of Charleston, sets forth the attitude of members of the Hebrew faith towards the liquor laws of the State, in reply to a letter to the attorney general, excerpts from which were recently published in this correspondence, in which the writer, a Charleston man, contended that the quart-a-month law was unconstitutional in that every Jew “shall have the privilege to order at least one gallon of liquor for his own personal religious purposes.” and asked the attorney general so to hold. “He who presumes to make such statement is certainly an irresponsible and reckless character,” says Rabbi Loeb, “and it is regrettable that such thing should have been brought into the public prints.”

    Rabbi Loeb states the reasons why, he says “the Jews are known to be opposed to legislative prohibition,” “and yet,” he says, “whenever conditions make it necessary for a municipality or a State to have prohibition in vogue, the true Israelite will bow his head with respect to the public demand.”

    The letter to which Rabbi Loeb takes exception was published in the ordinary course of news as to the effect of the quart-a-month law, as construed by the attorney general, and certainly no reflection was intended upon any religious faith or the members thereof. “Matters of this kind,” says the attorney general in a letter, to Rabbi Loeb, “are given out from this office for the purpose of general information and never in a spirt, of sarcasm, as this and other numerous inquiries are relative to recent laws of vital concern to the general public and to which access is not always available.” 

    The attorney general states succinctly the position of this correspondent in regard to the publication of the matter.

     Rabbi Loeb requests that his communication be published. The correspondence, which is of general interest in relation to its definition of the attitude of the members of the Hebrew faith towards the liquor laws, is as follows: 

Rabbi Loeb's Letter. 

“Charleston, S. C., May 18, 1917.

“Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. 

    “Dear Sir: My attention was drawn to a special news item in the local papers of Friday, May 11, wherein it is stated a man from Charleston complains that, the ‘one quart a month measure’ is entirely too small to satisfy his cravings and his ‘religious aspirations.’ He claims to be a Jew, and to comply with the dictates of his Jewish faith, he says, at least one gallon a month is required.

    “The man who made such statement, whoever he may be, only betrays his ignorance and his absolute lack of a sense of responsibility. As a matter of truth, which (which the man speaks about) is seldom if ever, used for religious purposes among Jews. For the Passover celebration as well as for the “Kiddush” (sanctification) on the eve of a Sabbath, or a religious holiday, light wines are used (containing a very small quanityt [sic] of alcohol as a rule even less than 4 to 6 per cent.).

    “In the absence of wine, the “Kiddush” may be pronounced over the two loaves of white bread, placed at the head of the festive board on Sabbaths and holidays. Some individual persons may perhaps use a little glass of whiskey as a substitute for the wine at Kiddush. But such practice is very unusual and unpopular. For the members of the Jewish households have no taste for whiskey as a beverage. Whsikey [sic] is used in the Jewish home only for medicinal purposes, mostly diluted with fruit juices in the form of cordials. And when served plainly as an ‘appetizer’ at a public feast one may notice that three or four bottles of whiskey (ordinary size) would be placed at the set tables before a-hundred or more of the invited guests and that the same bottles, more than half filled, are removed from the tables when the supper is over.

    “Beer is at times made use of in Jewish homes, but very sparsely, and with meals only, as a food or part of the diet; never in the socalled [sic] ‘drinking bouts.’ One glassful for a man and half a glass for a woman or child is the usual quantity of beer consumed by Jewish families when they have occasion to use beer at dinner.

    “It is true the Jew can not consistently call himself a ‘prohibitionist,’ since the law demands the use of fermented beverages on holidays and joyous festivities. But, as said, the quantity of liquor thus consumed among Jews is so small and insignificant that the Jewish vicinity is really the least affected by the publicly pronounced restrictive measures. Prohibition or no prohibition, in Jewish homes they never knew the difference.

    “However, the Jews are known to be opposed to legislative prohibiton [sic] partly because such restriction is unnecessary in their midst, and principally because as a community the Jews always dread the possibility of restrictive measures which may eventually lead into abridgement of personal rights, as even into religious persecution.

    “And yet whenever conditions make it necessary for a municipality, or a State, to have prohibition in vogue, the true Israelite will bow his head with respect to the public demand and ‘the law of the land’ then—'the law’ in the sight of Judaism (dictum of the Talmud). The true Israelite will always regard the general welfare of the community above his personal convenience. And then, there is absolutely no cause for grievance in the Jewish home and household, even as to provision for the Passover wine. 

    “Under ordinary circumstances (barring special events or sickness) one quart of whiskey may suffice in the average Jewish home, not only for a month, but for many months, even for a whole year. The idea that a full gallon of whiskey is required each month for religious purposes among Jews is simply preposterous. He who presumes to make such statement is certainly an irresponsible and reckless character who has as little regard for religion as he has for common decency. The whole thing is a rank falsehood and a slur upon the Jewish name and character.

    “It is regrettable that such things should have been brought into the public prints and to clear any possible misapprehension in the matter on the part of the public I will ask you to kindly note the above facts to which I can truthfully subscribe my name.

    “Resectfully [sic] yours.

    “Julius T. Loeb.

    “Rabbi Berith-Shalom Congregation.”

Attorney General's Reply.

“Columbia. May 28, 1917. 

“Rabbi J. T. Loeb, Charleston, S. C. 

    “Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 18th inst. I regret that the communication referred to is unfair to the great and worthy cause which you represent and if it be your desire I assure you that I will take pleasure in requesting the newspapers to publish your letter with the same prominence as given to the article over which you are protesting.

    “Matters of this kind are given out from this office for the purpose of general information and never in a spirit of sarcasm, as this and other, numerous inquiries are relative to recent laws of vital concern to the general public and to which access is not always available.

    “Very respectfully,

    “Thomas H. Peeples.

    “Attorney General.”

    “Charleston, S. C., May 29, 1917.

“Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney, General. Columbia, S. C. 

    “Dear Sir: I received your letter of yesterday's date and feel very grateful for the kind attention you have given my communication of the 18th inst. You will, indeed, confer a favor upon the Jews of Charleston and South Carolina by having this communication of mine published in the same manner as was the article referred to.

    “Very respectfully yours,

    “J. T. Loeb.”