What This Source Explains
The fight over whiskey’s name was also a fight over what buyers could know. Haara describes Taft’s 1909 decision as a disclosure settlement: straight whiskey, rectified spirits and blends could be distinguished on labels instead of making one production method the sole owner of the word.
Source And Locator
Brian F. Haara, Bourbon Justice: How Whiskey Law Shaped America (Lincoln: Potomac Books, 2018), chapter 7, “Bourbon Leads the Nation to Consumer Protection,” discussion of the Taft Decision. In the supplied digital copy, the central passage is on PDF sheet 110; sheets 109–111 provide surrounding context. These are digital-sheet coordinates, not printed page numbers.
Compare The Primary Decision
Read Taft’s December 27, 1909 decision. It explains the administration’s distinction among straight whiskey, whiskey made from rectified or neutral spirits, and mixtures. The decision also rejects “whisky” as the trade name for the molasses-derived spirit under discussion.
Reading With Care
Haara’s account supports truthful product identification. His suggestion that whiskey was finally defined should not be read as the end of regulatory change. The decision is historical evidence, not today’s labeling rulebook or a guarantee that every product is safe.
Continue Exploring
Defining Whiskey — return to the lesson.
The Scholar’s Corner — explore the research collection.