The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-12-06

q state INSISTED that il would show this
connection later.
Wednesday morning the state asked
continuance on the ground that an i'm
portant witness. !. T. Stearns, pro
fssor of chemistry IN the University Of
Vermont who had made an analysis,
was sick and unable to attend. The
defense objected strenuously. arguing
that Stearns was not competent
chemist. offering Druggist Chaplin AS
an expert to show just what the alco-
holc percentage was and insisting that
they had danced attendance a long
while The states attorney insisted
that Chaplin was no expert. and had
neither the knowledge nor apparatus
for satisfactory analyses. The crimina-
ton and rccriminatiou. including ac-
cusations against the balitfs of
treating friends with the seized
beer. occupied the time until noon.
when Justice Adams granted the con
tinuance with aconic observation
! that he hoped the state would then be
ready to provo something.
The fight Is going TO be III the main
scientific one. over the chemical
analysis. The effort to discredit Mr..
Chaplin as an expert, however it
operates in court, will not convince
people who know him. Though the
officials will give out no definite in.
formation. we believe that it will turn
out that the other analyses do not show
a much greater alcoholic percentage
than he found. 1t would ma turally be
a little larger because age docs make
a difference with all beers, unless.they |
are so light that they sour, and trans
portation for distance might get up |
some new fermentation. But all this
would amount to only a fraction
All Fits will say is that his
analysis will show it to violate the
law and this probably refers to the
theory which ne fought for in the
Harry Pratt case, that if it contains
malt it is contrahand. The statute
says malt liquors, but if this means
any liquid that contains malt. no mat
ter whether Intoxicating or not, our
prob ibltory law is even more absurd
than we have supposed If so there
are any quantity of food and medi
ral preparations that are prohibited.
But there is serious question
whether the presence of malt or maltese ,
IAN be determined after fermentation.
Mr. Chaplin VIII produce long string
If the best chemical authorities in the
country tu say that it cannot The
ssuc has been fought in the Washing
me county court this week where
Prof. StcarHS testified that he found it
u the Suffolk beer ana even claimed
1 could he detected by taste. The
appeared and sworc
positively that there was no malt in il
MI | l. ttu,,
hemist. cuntradictcd Stearns scicn- L
itically. /
Justice ADAMS. fair and correct ms
e usually was, made mistake in
cnying Il trial 10y jury. following the
ccisi"n Of Justice Newton in the Gale
ase. \ new uuint WAS raised bv 4
ounscl for defense here that tn" law
al hren changed since the supreme
ourt decision on which Mr.. Newton
ascd his ruling. that under the old
Nv when liquor was seized the owner
+ keeper could appear as claimant if
e desired. bat this was changed hv
~ art ri ri 80 thai the officer is
ERECTED to 'apprrhcnd thr owner or
cepcr and bring him forthwith before
Justice and il the liquor is con III
rmnrd he Is held for the costs under e,
4 execution equivalent To a close iail IL
'rtiiicatc. 50, They argued, the pro CO
'edin@ has been changed from one To
salnst the thing merely and the law IN
Nv makes Il man - party and hc has
constitutional righ; iu jury trial
here certainly Is force Ia this t.nu'rn-
on. but hack of il all was an issue
Tact M these c;isc*. whether the
yer - Intoxicating at ;tli or not. and
at issue Is cntit!cd to "a jury trail. u
I" "a! i',ai intoxicating liquor is II
,ntiasr'i, 1'''"rtiing tn the decision u
lied on ia the (-alr ,.;ls,.. is simri, Ia