This is unusually relevant to consumer blending: objections to neutral-spirit products cannot be generalized into opposition to every whiskey-to-whiskey blend. His terminology and tax comments are historical testimony, not a statement of current labeling law or proof that a particular blend will taste good.
Original PDF pagination in the supplied 291-page expanded ebook capture, not its displayed reader counters. This is an attributed paraphrase, not a quotation.
In reproduced congressional questioning, Van Winkle distinguishes mixing similar whiskies from combining whiskey and neutral spirits. His preferred vocabulary reserves blending for the former and calls the latter compounding. He also acknowledges having worked in rectifying himself.
168
167
Chapter 12 — whiskey blending versus neutral-spirit compounding
Read against supplied PDF. Verification means source fidelity and locator checked, not independent validation of each historical or technical claim.
No access › 
Evidence
In reproduced congressional questioning, Van Winkle distinguishes mixing similar whiskies from combining whiskey and neutral spirits. His preferred vocabulary reserves blending for the former and calls the latter compounding. He also acknowledges having worked in rectifying himself.
Location and context
Original PDF pages 167–168. Part 1 holds original 1–97; part 2 holds 98–194; part 3 holds 195–291. These are not the ebook's reader counters.
Source section: Chapter 12 — whiskey blending versus neutral-spirit compounding. Attributed paraphrase, not a direct quotation.
Annotation
This is unusually relevant to consumer blending: objections to neutral-spirit products cannot be generalized into opposition to every whiskey-to-whiskey blend. His terminology and tax comments are historical testimony, not a statement of current labeling law or proof that a particular blend will taste good.
Verification
Read against the supplied source. Verified refers to source fidelity and recoverable location, not independent confirmation of every claim.