The Taft Decision of 1909: What Is Whiskey?

On 27 December 1909, President William Howard Taft decided that the American term “whisky” could include potable spirits distilled from grain, not just straight whiskey. His answer to the dispute was truthful labelling: straight whiskey, whiskey made from neutral spirits and blends could bear the name, provided buyers were told what they were getting.[1]

Why the meaning of whiskey reached the White House

The dispute grew out of the Food and Drugs Act, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt on 30 June 1906. The Act regulated labelling rather than requiring products to receive approval before sale, and prohibited false or misleading labels. The Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Chemistry administered it, with Harvey Wiley as its chief.[2]

Yet, as Taft pointed out, “the pure-food act does not mention the term ‘whisky’”. Officials therefore had to decide what an honest whiskey label meant without a definition of the drink in the Act itself.[1]

That was no small distinction for producers. A rule reserving the name for straight whiskey would leave other grain spirits outside the category, regardless of whether their makers and customers had previously called them whiskey. The argument concerned both the contents of the bottle and the right to use a familiar name.[1]

In April 1907, Internal Revenue Order No. 723 took the narrower position. It restricted the brand “whisky” to what the trade called straight whiskey and required other grain liquors to be branded “imitation whisky”. The order rested on two opinions from Attorney General Charles Bonaparte, drawing on dictionary definitions.[1]

Distillers petitioned for a rehearing. Their objection went to the method as well as the outcome: what people understood by whiskey, they argued, was a question of fact, not something dictionaries alone could settle.[1]

Story box: a President as whiskey judge

Wiley, Bowers and the competing definitions

Wiley’s position gave straight whiskey a powerful advocate within the administration. According to historian Michael R. Veach, Wiley based his definition on The Pharmacopoeia of the United States, which excluded blended or rectified products. Veach also records advertising for “Pure Food Whiskey” between 1906 and 1909, reflecting that narrower understanding.[5]

The disagreement had enforcement consequences. The FDA’s historical account records that Walter Campbell, Wiley’s Chief Inspector, judged rectified whiskey adulterated and “prepared the first libel for seizure under the law”. This was not simply an argument about terminology between competing producers.[3]

Bowers’s inquiry examined what whiskey had meant to makers, the trade and consumers before the Act. His five questions also addressed what the term included, whether particular accompanying substances were necessary, whether the name was being misapplied and whether whiskey as a drug differed from whiskey as a beverage.[1]

Those accompanying substances were described as congeners. Bowers accepted rectified and redistilled whiskey, and grain distillates retaining sufficient congeners, but excluded neutral spirits made by continuous distillation. His proposed boundary therefore depended partly on what remained alongside the alcohol.[1]

Taft called that dividing line “too impracticable” to administer. He instead found it overwhelmingly established that, in trade and consumer usage over a hundred years, whiskey had included “all potable liquor distilled from grain”. The name was broad enough to accommodate different methods, provided the label explained the resulting product.[1]

What the Taft decision allowed labels to say

The decision did not erase the difference between straight whiskey and other grain spirits. It preserved that distinction through additional wording rather than excluding the other spirits from the whiskey name altogether.[1]

These are the decision’s historical directions, not a guide to present American labelling law. Their purpose was to make the distinction visible without treating every grain spirit outside the straight category as an imitation.[1]

Disputed: how many categories the decision defined. Michael R. Veach describes three categories, including imitation or artificial whiskey. The decision itself uses straight whisky, whisky made from a named spirit, and blend; that difference in wording remains visible in the primary text.[1][4] Earliest known source for Veach’s account: 28 October 2024, https://bourbonveach.com/2024/10/28/bourbons-unsung-heroes-president-william-howard-taft/. Decision: 27 December 1909, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/367051. Last checked: Not documented.

Canadian Club supplied Taft with a named example. He described it as a blend of whiskey made from neutral spirits and straight whiskey, aged in wood, which its owners could label accordingly.[1]

Documented: Taft used Canadian Club as an example of a blend its owners could label as such. The decision records his description; it does not establish the brand’s present composition. Earliest known source: Taft’s decision, 27 December 1909. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/367051. Last checked: Not documented.

He also cited the British Royal Commission on whisky as having decided the question “in the same way”. The comparison supported his broader interpretation, although his own decision addressed the American dispute and the regulations before him.[1]

The boundary at grain remained firm. Taft wrote that drinking spirit distilled from molasses had commonly been known as rum and that calling it whiskey was misbranding. His broad definition was not permission to apply the word to any alcoholic spirit.[1]

Branding, not a finding that whiskey was healthy

Taft explicitly separated the question he was deciding from a health argument. After comparing fusel oil in straight whiskey and neutral spirits whiskey, he wrote: “The question, therefore, is not here one of health. It is only one of correct branding.”[1]

That sentence describes his reasoning in this historical dispute, not a modern assurance about drinking. His stated objective was that “the public will be made to know exactly the kind of whisky they buy and drink”.[1]

He also paid “deference to the very able consideration of this question made by Doctor Wiley”. The disagreement was substantial, but the decision itself acknowledged Wiley’s work rather than dismissing it.[1]

What happened after the decision?

The ruling was certified to the Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, and Commerce and Labor for Pure Food regulations. It also went to the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for revenue regulations, connecting Taft’s reasoning to both regulatory routes named in the decision’s title.[1]

Veach reports that rectifiers considered the result too harsh, while straight whiskey makers considered it too lenient. His interpretation is that both nevertheless accepted it. That is a historian’s assessment of the response, distinct from the wording of Taft’s ruling.[4]

A surviving correspondence adds another view of its reception. The Filson Historical Society records a letter from Taft thanking Kentucky Governor Augustus E. Willson for supporting the decision, alongside a printed copy preserved in the Taylor and Hay family scrapbooks.[6]

Disputed: why Wiley resigned. Michael R. Veach associates Wiley’s departure with his anger at the decision, but also dates his resignation to 1912. The FDA’s history gives 1912 without stating a reason and records earlier changes that diluted his authority. The causal link to Taft’s decision is not established.[2][5] Earliest known source for the account linking the decision to his departure: Veach, 20 January 2025, https://bourbonveach.com/2025/01/20/harvey-w-wiley/. FDA account: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/changes-science-law-and-regulatory-authorities/part-i-1906-food-and-drugs-act-and-its-enforcement. Last checked: Not documented.

Common mistakes about the Taft decision

“Taft created today’s bourbon production rules.” His decision contains no requirement for 51% corn or new charred oak, and no two year maturation requirement for straight bourbon. It permits “Bourbon” or “Rye” where the grain justifies the description; reading later US requirements into that wording changes what the document says.[1]

“Taft forced blends to be called imitation whiskey.” That confuses the result with the earlier Order No. 723. Taft allowed whiskey made from neutral spirits to carry the whiskey name with explanatory wording, and identified mixtures with straight whiskey as blends.[1]

“Wiley was the head of the FDA.” He led the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Chemistry. The name Food and Drug Administration dates from 1930, so applying it to his role in this dispute is anachronistic.[2][3]

Where to go next

• The History of Bourbon and Kentucky Whiskey: follow the wider history surrounding the bourbon name.
• American Whiskey During Prohibition: What Survived and Why: continue into the next major disruption to American whiskey.
• The Whiskey Ring: The Scandal That Reached the White House: explore a different collision between whiskey and presidential government.

Sources

1. The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. William Howard Taft, Decision on the Meaning of the Term “Whisky” Under the Pure Food Act and the Proper Regulations for Branding Various Kinds of Whisky Under the Internal Revenue Act, 27 December 1909. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/367051
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Part I: The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement, undated historical account. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/changes-science-law-and-regulatory-authorities/part-i-1906-food-and-drugs-act-and-its-enforcement
3. US Food and Drug Administration. Walter Campbell, undated historical account. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-leadership-1907-today/walter-campbell
4. Michael R. Veach. Bourbon’s Unsung Heroes: President William Howard Taft, 28 October 2024. https://bourbonveach.com/2024/10/28/bourbons-unsung-heroes-president-william-howard-taft/
5. Michael R. Veach. Harvey W. Wiley, 20 January 2025. https://bourbonveach.com/2025/01/20/harvey-w-wiley/
6. The Filson Historical Society. 20th Century Distilling Papers at The Filson, undated archival overview. https://filsonhistorical.org/archive/news_v7n4_distilling.html

This desk-researched article uses the supplied verified fact sheet, distinguishing Taft’s published decision from institutional histories and later historical interpretation.

Last checked: November 2026