Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-01-23

sssSSassDOss
E8MUAoGnA, JANUARY ~ 1ae.
1Hsy . Nss Ayrss.
o. oo1olpoo6enta do MOI seem TO
- upoa the question oe the intoxica-
n Vualit9 q cidef. We greatly fear
70 - oupcons court, in dsclinipg 70
nu1oo onoQuueioa md referring it 70 The
-. ~ 0one that which viii In the
- IN upoa many Of our good citi-
- = elro6eh thslr lengths al night
DrnA upoa The hard board Of jury
- bonoh. Just imagine . jury Of
0uovo ~ being called upon TO say
hooh9 eldaf y Intoxicating and whether
i n1low Citizen shall 20 to jail for
snlne ltl There viii be very likely
r y 49, meeting Of common sense"
! ~ Sapp1o ms," on every such jury
-. thsn goodbye 10 verdict. There ID
s fuDlAlng like the liquor question to mako
~ Juxy alsAgree !; and to stir the commu-
~ b variance.
n Bat we did think that we might reach
"A eommon ground In the matter OF poor
( 1nnDoent cider, especially when It Il new,
- When according to ourcorrespondent's
4 &6Ao0ical authority, alcohol cannot be de-
oosssd jules the apples have been rotten.
4 We would b willing to bar fbtten apples
nd 70 convict any man selling cider
Z DA6e out OF them, Of high crime and
y mlDdemeanor because that man would
21Aoal. The Juice Of such fruit Is only 6t
- vinegar. Bot we are profoundly Of
- opinion that the man who would
Deovent the free sale OF fresh and sound
otaee h fanatical In his views. It seems
- - that the views Of Common Sense"
4 oGaek Of that infirmity rather than
oe the virtue which he claims for
himself. He sssails unreasonably the
glew Of /" Apple Sass" that new cider Is
/ ~ Intoxicating, while adding post
o4ipt declaring that the state asssyer of
y Massachusetts, shows this to be the fact.
Il ne = doubtless correct, however, in his
81 assertion that hard cider Is intoxicating
even without whisky in It; and the
whole question seems to be as to when
older gets hard enough to make its con-
eumer tight" Common Sense Twill
& ~ that 1t does not at all matter
1 what his opinion or ours may
& - about the advisability Of prohibit
81 ~ the sale OF o beverage that 10
not intoxicating, since that not Is pun
I'D BY the law.
&, New cider under the law may be freely
nd, since tho human stomach has not
s enpacity for the quantity that will intox-
s 1sate. Fresh from the still even "Com.
ION Sense" comedies that the juice Of
sound apples is innocent, and the question
S q whsn 1t becomes otherwise Is referred
4 ~ the law to the jury. In Its decision
- Wish them q safe deliverance. The
eoning Ill night struggles will turn many
81 . jurymans hair gray. We do NOT
& know what 10 suggest for their re-
H., un'eD tho court will hereafter agree,
& UAsn Il has cider cases to try, to sep.
oEate the jury into its prohibition and
oneprohibition elements-to put the
oheop and the goats apart making up its
4 Clder juries out o.. each lot talternately, and
4 Uiving share of victims as sacrifice Ia
- Prohlbitionists, that the wheels Of
S 3useice may be kept moving.
30 far Lspcaster county juries have
hoen singularIy unanimous in deciding
that cider drinking is an innocent bust.
ne0. Twice this week have juries so 70
3 corded their verdict. The prohibition
folk seem to be scarce on the January
sessions panel. Tue learned judge
& amisted the juries to their conclusion
= byiadvising them that 1t was not their
ousiness to say whether cider was in.
toxicating, but only whether it was
"vinous or splrituous." Clearly it
Wa not vinous, since the apple does
not grow on vine and the jury found
thAe It was not spirituous, not.
# Uithstanding It was hard "and the wit
u neases said that they felt " in their heads.
& There was no expert testimony about the
1 quantity OF alcohol in hard cider, and
the0e jurors evidently considered that it
Vas not their business to find it when 1t
vas no. testified to.