Distillering Cultures

Whiskey hauled to Baltimore---Many
Distilleries--- Excise Law—Business Declined

Distilling of whiskey from rye and corn was a profitable business in the lower counties of Pennsylvania from 1780 to 1792 and from 1800 to 1830 and during that period York excelled all other Pennsylvania counties in this industry. The whiskey was made in small copper stills and in a few townships nearly every farmer owned one or more of them during the time when the business was most profitable.

Lancaster County ranked second in the distilling industry. The whiskey made in that county was hauled in Wagons to Philadelphia and Wilmington.

Taken to Baltimore.
The York County farmers took nearly all of their whiskey to Baltimore. Large wagons drawn by four or six horses were used for this purpose. Some of the whiskey was hauled in hogsheads. Four large hogsheads, each containing about one hundred and fifty gallons, made one load. Sometimes smaller barrels were used, but the large ones were common in both Lancaster and York Counties from 1800 to 1820, when the distilling business was carried on most extensively. After 1810 some of the farmers built larger distilleries with improved methods of making whiskey.

The York County farmer turned his cereals into liquors because it was more profitable for him to do this than to haul his grain to Baltimore or Philadelphia. The prices varied, but the average amount received for a gallon of whiskey seems to have been low in comparison to the amount in later years. Corn whiskey of fairly good quality was hauled from York County to Baltimore and sold for twenty-four cents a gallon. For some of the best rye whiskey the amount of eighty cents a gallon was received.

Nowhere was the importance of the industry more strikingly illustrated than in the advertisements of hardware stores. Some of the York and Lancaster firms used a copper still as a sign in front of their stores as early as 1796.

It was not alone the difficulty of transportation which made the manufacture of whiskey desirable, but it was one of the very few ways by which the owner of a small amount of capital could become a manufacturer. The following statement made in 1791 by a writer from western Pennsylvania illustrates this well:

“There is no man of easy and affluent circumstances who will trouble himself with a distillery. It is an effort made by those who are just rising from the pressing circumstances, to become manufacturers so they can make something more than by cutting timber or tilling the soil. Any man, who after severe struggling, is able to purchase the utensils for a distillery, considers himself above absolute drudgery, and thus make a shilling faster and easier than with the mattock and the plow alone.”

Many Distilleries.
It was for such reasons that the York and Lancaster farmers found it convenient, if not necessary, to turn their rye and corn into whiskey, while they fed their live stock with the refuse of this product. This industry was not limited to a few people, for the statistics that are to follow will show that most of the well-to-do farmers had one distillery, while others had from two to four. The owners of grist mills found it profitable to have distilleries in connection with their mills, for instead of selling that part which was their portion for grinding, they might again add to its value by manufacturing it into whiskey. The ingredients that entered into this whiskey were numerous. One of the account books has the following interesting item: “Took fifty bushels of screenings to the distillery.” There is a strong probability that this refuse was used for the manufacture of spirits and that the product was not Pure Rye.

Corn Whiskey.
In fact, as far as can be learned from the old distillers now living, the product manufactured in early days was chiefly corn whiskey. One of the account books contains the statement, giving the number of bushels of ingredients used within a certain number of months.

This table illustrates the proportions that were adopted in at least one distillery, and since this was one of the most important ones, it is likely that these proportions are fairly representative.

Corn 5853 parts
Rye 1941 parts
Yeast Rye 438 parts
Malt 273 parts

The preceding discussion presents some of the conditions that made this industry desirable and profitable, and in this light the following statistics, showing the number of distilleries in York County, which then included Adams County, will be instructive:

Distilling seemed to have reached its zenith in 1810, as far as its numerical strength is concerned, but that does not mean that its productive power decreased with the decline in the number of distilleries after 1810. The decade from 1810 to 1820 was the time of many inventions in machinery used in its production and the returns make a distinction between the small copper still and the improved apparatus of later date. However, with the advent of the railroads and the solution of the problem of transportation there is little doubt that the production of whiskey greatly declined, for in 1840, according to the reports in the assessment rolls, the number of distilleries is insignificant as compared with that of 1810.

Excise Law.
The prosperity of this industry was threatened with the enactment of the first National Excise law (1792-1801), while the opposition manifested itself in open rebellion in the Whiskey Insurrection of Western Pennsylvania in 1794. At the time of the enactment of this law corn whiskey sold for no more than a shilling a gallon and owing to the scarcity of money and credit, a gallon of this beverage constituted the medium of exchange in the western counties of Pennsylvania. The question naturally arose whether this industry would be profitable after this tax was paid. The act provided:

“That upon all spirits which after the last day of June next, 1791, shall be distilled within the United States from any article of the growth or produce of the United States, in any city, town or village, there shall be paid for their use the duties following, that is to say: for every gallon of those spirits more than ten per cent below proof, according to the Dicas’s hydrometer, nine cents: for every gallon of those spirits above proof and not more than five per cent below proof, according to the same hydrometer, ten cents; for every gallon of those spirits above proof, but not exceeding twenty per cent, according to the same hydrometer, thirteen cents; for every gallon of those spirits more than twenty, and not more than forty per cent above proof, according to the same hydrometer, seventeen cents; for every gallon of those spirits more than forty per cent above proof, according to the same hydrometer, twenty-five cents.

In 1790, when the proposed excise laws first came up in congress, a Pennsylvania state law then in force called for the payment of a small tax on spirits. This tax, however, was repealed in 1792. Before the repeal of the state law, the Pennsylvania Assembly made a stand against the proposed national law. The greatest portion of the first session of the first legislature under the constitution of 1790, at the same time and in the same building where Congress was discussing the excise laws, was spent in passing resolutions against the passage of the proposed law of Congress. These resolutions failed to gain publicity since the Senate refused to concur in them. There were about seventy-five members in the Assembly of Pennsylvania and out of these less than twenty voted against the following resolutions:

“Resolved, that any endeavors on the part of the United States to collect revenue by means of excise established upon principles subversive of peace, liberty and rights of the citizens, ought to be remonstrated against.”

“Resolved, that no public exigency can, in the opinion of this House, warrant the adoption of any species of taxation which shall violate those rights which were the reward of those exertions, and the basis of our government, and which would exhibit the singular spectacle of a nation magnanimously resisting the oppression of others in order to enslave itself.”

“Resolved, that it appears inconsistent with the duties of the representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania to remain silent spectators of a measure, in which their constituents are so deeply interested; and that these sentiments be communicated to the Senators representing the state of Pennsylvania in the Senate of the United States.”

When the vote upon these resolutions was taken in the Pennsylvania House, four of the six representatives from Lancaster County voted in the affirmative and the remaining two were absent. Only two of the six representatives from York County voted for the resolutions, while four voted against them. The members from York County were: Joseph Reid, Philip Gardner, Henry Tyson, John Stewart, William McPherson and Thomas Lilly.

Hartley’s Vote.
The minority of the House adopted extensive resolution in opposition to the action of the majority, maintaining that no state had a right to prescribe for Congress what acts are expedient and what are not. Very likely the action of the York County members was based upon this constitutional objection and should not be interpreted as meaning that they decided to stamp out the industry in the county. The excise was a measure of the administration and to support these resolutions would throw question upon the Federal power over the county. This interpretation was supported by the action of colonel Thomas Hartley in Congress, who refrained from all discussion upon the proposed National Excise and voted against the measure when it was brought up for a vote. The constitutional objection that applied to the members from York County in the Pennsylvania legislature did not apply to him.

When it was ascertained that the tax returns gave such complete data relative to this industry as shown in the tables, it became the chief concern to ascertain the effect of the National Excise Law upon the industry in these counties. In York County the expectations were fully realized. The above table, giving the distilling industry of York County, shows that there were three hundred and fifty-three distilleries in 1782, two hundred and three in 1788, three hundred and forty-six in 1801, five hundred and ninety-nine in 1810 and two hundred and eighty-six in 1820; but the most significant feature is that between 1792 and 1801, the period of the National Excise Law, not a single distillery is reported in the tax return.

Business Declined.
The number of distilleries had decreased from three hundred and fifty-three in 1782 to two hundred and three in 1788, which indicates that the industry was somewhat on the decline. Between 1788 and 1792 the complete tax returns of only one township are available, but in that township the distilleries increased from nine to twelve in this period. At all events, the absence of the distilleries as found in the tax returns from 1792 to 1800, and the appearance of three hundred and forty-six of these distilleries in 1801, was due to no other reason than the enactment of the Excise Law. The period of inactivity did not seem to incapacitate these stills; in fact, it seemed to multiply their number by about one hundred and fifty, and there is at least a basis for strong suspicion that “inactivity” may not be descriptive of actual condition. It is impossible to ascertain to what extent the National Treasury suffered from the silence of the assessors, for the treasury receipts were destroyed when the Capitol was burned by the British in 1814.

After the use of the old time copper still was discontinued, larger distilleries were erected in several townships of York County. At these places rye whiskey was made in considerable quantity for a period of half a century. Only two or three of these distilleries are now in operation. Among the establishments where rye whiskey has been distilled in this county, within recent years, are the following: Hake’s and Eichinger’s, in Fairview Township; Free’s near Goldsboro, in Newberry Township; Foust’s in Springfield Township; Hellam Distilling Company, in Hellam Township, and Coulter’s in Railroad Borough.