The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-03-07
YESTERDAYS TRIAL.
The Hop Lager Question Settled.

room was nlled with parties interested, IN the
solution of the hop lager problem. There
was an unusual amount of regular business t.
| dispose of, and the case of the day was not
| taken up until after ten o'clock. The testi
| mony had been heard previously and the argu.
ments were in order when the case was takeI
up. After some discussion it was decided thai
Mr.. Haskell should open for the government
/ and Judge Goddard for Mr.. Atwood, and the
case should then be decided without any reply
from either side.
Mr.. Haskell. made short but very direct
and pointed argument he said that tha ques-
ton was simply whether or not the beer sold
comes under the law prohibiting the sale OF
malt liquors. Whether it is or is not intoxi-
eating is not important The analysis of Prof.
Carmichael, however, shows 4.03 per cent by
volume, while the weight is little less. It is
claimed that it is malt liquor, and if it is, it
matters not whether it contains one or
three per cent of alcohol, it comes within the
meaning of the law. From this point he pro-
ceeded to speak of the manner in which malt
liquors were manufactured and how malt itself
was made. In the case of the beer seized it
was argued that to change it from lager beer
the malt had been decreased aud the hops in
creased. He said there was small beer made
of malt in England which contained but 1.2S
per cent. The beer seized was made by putting
in rs pounds of malt and three pounds of hops,
while for the remainder barrel water was
used. If you take out the malt, you have
nothing but hops and water left, and there is
no beer. Malt constitutes the chief article,
and consequently it must be a malt liquor.
The United States revenue officials require it
to be stamped as malt liquor before it can be
sold.
Judge Goddard iprefaced his remarks with
word of thanks to Sheriff Ring for his cour-
tesy towards his client in allowing him to re-
turn to the brewery a small lot of beer sent
here by mistake after the seizure was made.
Referring to the case in hand, he said that If
the beer seized was within the statute prohib-
iting the sale of liquors, he was willing to abide
by the decision but if it is not malt liquor it is
not unlawful to sell it. 1t is not lager bser, as
an examination of the two liquids will show
any one. and it cannot be called intoxics ting
simply because it contained small per cent.
of alcohol. Liquors are often found to be ill.,
toxicating beyond a reasonable doubt simply
by the smell, as they are proved the reverse the
same way. Prof Bartlett testifies that this
beer, as examined on the day it was seized,
contained 76 by weight and 3.4S by volume.
The next day after it was seized, after jour-
ney to Boston, Prof. Babcock, who, although
he has not nearly the learning of Prof. Car
michael, has had much larger experience,
says that it contained $50 by weight aud 8 80
by volume. Eighteen days after, when the
beer had soured, it was sent to Prof Car
michael who found 8. % by weight and 4.3O by
volume. Is it right that this respondent shall
suffer by this delay. But to come to the real
question at issue, is it a malt liquor? II it is,
there is no more to say. l admit that there is
malt in it, as did the manufacturer on the
stand. At this point he produced bottle of
Trammer's extract of malt, which he had pur,
chased at Bartlett's store. 1t contained 4.61
per cent. of malt bui no alcohol 1t was sold
for invalids and was just as liable to be seized
if the governments argument was sound as
this beer. Colored water is liable to be seized
on the same ground.
After speaking Of the question OF Selling
several articles of common use he referred to
the fact that there had been a newspaper con-
troversy wholly unsought on bis part. He was
sorry and surprised to see such an article as
was published by ST. 10 the PRESS 1t was
wholly unprovoked, the only pretense being
fifteen line item in that paper which he took as
text to preach q discourse of 46 lines The
original item contained not single misstate-
ment in law or fact. Nor was there single
word which could be tortured into justifca-
ton for such an i'll timed article. He spoke
farther of another article in the Argus from the
same author, who charged him in name with
answering the first communication. 1t was a
false charge, and it surprises me that one hold
ing his relations to this case would rush into
print before the case was settled.
In speaking of the Wild reports made upon
the evils of intemperance and The reports upon
the decrease in the amount OF liquor sold and
drank, he said: 1t is constantly stated that ia
temperance is the parent of nne-tsDths of all
crimes, and only three years ago the chief mag-
strate of the state declared that three-fourths
at least of all intemperance had been banished
from the state which last statement am not
dispose to dispute. But both assertions could
not fairly be true and can prove it. Great
| and terrible as are the evils of intemperance
nothing can be gained by exaggeration. Look
at facts and figures. The population OF Maine
| in 1850 was 5S3, 1869; in 1870 626,915. In 1851
| when our first prohibition law was passed it
| was 5S7, lS0; in 1873 it was 629,S24 The esti-
/ mated increaee in these ~ years, during 70 OF
| which the state has been under prohibition, is
| 42644-a gain of just Il per cent Now the
| number of prisoners to be 81, Of whom there
| were only four murderers. Adding Il per cent.
| we ought to have, making no allowance for the
/ decrease of intemperance during the q years,
/ SO convicts and murderers in the state prison
| in 1878.
1 But if we say that pine-tenths of the vice
/ was due to drunkenness and that three-foprths
| of the drunkenness has been banished from
Maine, we ought to have twenty-sevep-fCrt
ieths of the crime suppressed, that is 67a pei
| cent, leaving only 32a per cent. of crime in
| existence This would give us 10 1873 only 81
convicts and 1 murderer But the report Of
| 1878 shows the actual number of cOnvicts to bs
2O7, to which must be added GO sent to the sew
l eral workshops with state prison sentences
built within the past five years at cost to thu
state of $50 OOO making 10 all 275 convicts, O.
whom the mIrderers number 10. This is al
l actual increase over and ABOVE the increase O
l population between 1851 and 1878 Of 296 pei
| cent. in convicts, and an increase OF 375 pc
cent of murderers;or an increase OF 9l7 per cent
| of convictS and 1895 per cent. OF murderer
above the calculations based Oh the estimate
| of the effect of intemperance on crime.
He did not deny that great good had beef
| done by the suppression OF the crime of intem
| perance TO so great degree, nor had he wor
to say against the Maine law or its enforce
| mepts here or elsewhere in the state, but
| believed that the good so done had been ou
| weighed fourfold by the morbid sympath
with great criminals, by the decline of socis
morals as revealed by the thousand divorces {
| the past year, and by the decay of religious b
| lief.
At the close of the arguments Judge Knigt
!, | gave his decision the points of which are {
) | follows:
, This article is made of % pounds of malt
| pounds of hops, aud the result is only lit
r | more than one per cent less alcohol than
| found in lager beer. Taking all its characte
both as to strength and flavor, from the NAL
o and only qualified by the stronger Infusion
!, hops and the lessening of the alcoholic sirengt
J, | beer, or nondescript article. 1t has less ma
= than is commercially known under any bral
h | of malt liquors, but such commercial differen
4 | would not justify its sale in Maine if it real
a be malt liquor. The United States COVER
5, ment might contract for wbiskey for hospit
$, purposes, but its being of SO low a grade as
to be accepted would not justify its sale und
the Mai law. So the mere fact that this is
u low grade and even vile article would q
ia justify magistrate in exemptng it from t
sweeping prohibitions of our statute, if it
really and essentially product of malt, as
7. cannot doubt it is. 1t is no defence to saw Il
is very poor stuff, though it be from malt,
s, it is proverbially true that all temperar
communities are cursed with the poor
IN liquors, SO far as they have liquors at all I
Supreme Court may construe the statute as
On including this article, because it varies fir
what in other markets are commercial
on known as malt liquors; but since nothing
ever to be presumed in favor of the author
BIS, | of magistrate of inferior Jurisdiction
would be iDdefensible for me to give such G
L. struction to it. There is but one thing for
magistrate to do, and that is to execute ev
II. i 1au IN Fol IS