In 1852 Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry was assigned a mission by President Millard Fillmore to force the opening of Japanese ports to American trade, through the use of gunboat diplomacy if necessary. Perry, shown here as he was depicted by Japanese artists, led a squadron of ships to the Far East shores but early had decided that gifts, not gunfire, was a better approach. What better “ice-breaker” than whiskey? Fast forward to 2022 when Japan and American rye would ignite a controversy involving American whiskey historians and spreading as far as Australia.
Perry’s flotilla apparently carried ample supplies of booze. It was still the era when each of his sailors was issued a pint of spirits a day. (Non-drinkers were compensated with pennies.) His first stop was Ryukuy (Okinawa), still a separate kingdom but claimed by Japan. Welcomed there, Perry and his officers were treated to a feast complete with sake, the rice wine. Reciprocating, the Commodore broke out a keg of American rye. Thus it was noted in Perry’s expedition record: “The first person to drink whiskey in Japan” is a high official of the Ryukyu Kingdom.”
Pressing on to the Japanese isles Perry landed near the capital at Edo in 1854. He had brought gifts for the Emperor, meant to emphasize American technical skills. Among them was a barrel of rye whiskey likely holding 32-40 gallons There seems to be no record of where or how it was presented. Note the print below. In the lower left hand of the picture is a barrel that may have held whiskey. The caption reads “Delivering of American presents at Yokuhama.” In addition, Perry is recorded giving an additional 100 gallons to members of the Japanese High Commission led by Prince Hayashi. The Commodore’s diplomatic visit ended with an agreement called the Convention of Kanagawa that opened two Japanese ports to American trade.
Fast forward to current times. In his 2013 book “Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey: An American Heritage” author Michael Veach made this claim: “The first legal challenge to the rectifiers came not from American distillers but from the government of Japan, which in 1869 objected to the practice of imported rectified whiskey being advertised as straight whiskey. This case ultimately came before the Ohio Circuit Court, the presiding judge, Alphonso Taft (the father of William Howard Taft), ruling that a product containing neutral spirits could not be called whiskey. While the decision did nothing to change the U.S. law—the rectifiers continued to do business as usual—it did set a legal precedent that would influence the regulation of whiskey under the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act.” A similar account can be found in Fred Minnick’s 2016 book: “Bourbon The Rise, Fall, And Rebirth Of An American Whiskey.” Neither author provided documentation for the account.
The story of the alleged Japanese legal challenge might have ended there if Greg Miller, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California, had not become interested in the matter and sought information on the decision Veach and Minnick claimed had been rendered by Cincinnati Judge Taft, later to become U.S. Attorney General. Miller was in touch with Jason Alexander, a division manager for the the Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Clerk of Courts where the Japanese suit presumably was filed. Meanwhile in Australia, Chris Middleton, an Australian liquor specialist, sought information for his column entitled “Whiskey Wash.”
Alexander, clearly fascinated with the case, reached out to others from whom he thought assistance might come. When he contacted me, I was flattered and while having no notion of the “Japanese suit” knew of a Cincinnati liquor dealer of that period who had created an international incident involving the U.S. Secretary of State by being accused, probably correctly, of adulterating whiskey he shipped to Bermuda. His name was Andrew Pfirrmann and he was in the liquor trade by 1866 so the timing was right for pointing a finger his way. But there was no real evidence.
Other elements of the story, however, puzzled me. The supposed suit had been launched only 15 years after Perry’s visit to Japan. Because Japan was still largely closed to Western trade at that time it was difficult to believe that any substantial quantity of American whiskey had been imported during that period. Furthermore, testing whiskey to determine if it has been adulterated, including addition of water, requires an alcoholmeter, used to determine the volume of alcohol known as “proof.” Shown below, the instrument is calibrated to the density of pure ethanol and is used on distilled spirits. Although invented by a Frenchman in the mid-1800s, it is unlikely that the device would have been in use in Japan as early as 1869.
In a three and one-half page memorandum written for the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, Jason Alexander cites similar skeptical views he received from other parties. His conclusion: “Thus, we believe, unless new evidence comes to light, that this case never existed.” The memorandum cites the fact that outside of the authors mentioned above, nothing else has been located to corroborate anything that pertains to a Japanese lawsuit over whiskey. “We believe that it is entirely within the realm of possibility that this alleged case was confused with Attorney General Taft’s opinion issued in 1876 since it was connected to the definition of whiskey or alcohol.” My conclusion: A case -- one that never really existed -- has been closed.
As a postscript it is worth noting that today Japanese whiskey is sold worldwide and Suntory now owns Jim Beam. May we credit Commodore Perry and his gift of whiskey for generating this $6 billion dollar Japanese industry as the Huffington Post did several years ago? Probably not. Although given a taste of American rye by Perry, the Japanese from the beginning have preferred Scotch as a model for their whiskey.
Note: Thanks to Jason Alexander for including me among those consulted. The case opened up a fascinating area of exploration, one that allows me to include Commodore Perry among my identified “whiskey men.” For further information on Andrew Pfirrmann and a seemingly valid international case of whiskey adulteration, see my post of December 7, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment