The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-12-13
THE HOp BEER CASE.
Condemned Though Not Intoxicating
All the Testimony TO Tint EHect-Eddy
& 60. to Appeal.

d co. to Appeal.
The great case against the hop bee
of Eddy e CO., seized mt the establish
mcnt of G.. II. Eddy & Co, Nov q
came to decision at the adjoine'
hearing Tuesday, and the decision was
: as the undisputed testimony was, tina
the beer is not Intoxicating. but un
. der the conglomeration of anythin.
y but intelligence. which constitutes on
prohibitory law il is contraband ant
, must be spilled. and so il the decision
holds Messrs Eddy 4 Co., who ar,
among our most reputable business
men, can be prosecuted to the full pen
alties of the law for selling intoXicat
inc liquor that doesn't intoxicate!
A reductio ad absurdam, of course,
but that is where prohibition" nee
essarly ends.
The thing that turned the case was
testimony of discharged employee of
tho Highland Brewing CO., of Spring
field, of whom Eddy & Co.. get the
beer, that it contained malt. SO Jus
tice Adams in very clear headed
opinion found that while the beer was
not Intoxicating it seemed to come un-
der the statutory provisions against
"malt liquors or lager beer and it
was for the supreme court, and not for
him to interpret the law and he there
! fore ordered the beer condemned.
The prosecution after the lesson af
forded by the Montpelier prosecution,
abandoned its purpose to prove by eX-
pert testimony that the beer contained
malt and the analyses by the different
experts all sustained those of Druggist
| Chapin. John B. Stearns, instructor
of chemistry in the University of Yer
mont, found /. 10 per cent of alcohol by
weight and Los per cent by volume
Thos II. Farmer of the West and Jen-
ny laboratory at Boston analysed one
bottle taken from keg. given him by
Officer Worden and / given him by
Officer Hall In the former he found
3. OF per cent of alcohol and in the lat
ter ,. ~ per cent by volume. 1t was the
only analysis of beer, he said, that he
had ever made. Neither of these wit
nesses was asked whether the beer was
Intoxicating or whether it contained
malt. If they had testified to the lat
ter point, as Stcarns did, in quail
fed way, at Montpelier, they would
have been overwhelmed by produc
tion Of authority to the contrary.
Tho experts for the defence were
Druggist Chaplin and Prof. James +.
Babcock of Boston, now milk inspect |
or, but for ten years inspector of il |
quors under appointment of the gov
ernor and also for five years a profes |
sor in Boston University. Mr.. Chap /
in S analysis, showed Les per cent by |
weight about per cent by volume in T
one sample, and in another 1.S7 per /
cent by weight equal TO 2,02 per cent |
by volume. This analysis was made the /
next day after the seizure. Dee. az
ter the beer had been moved from the
lookup to Officer Halls cellar, he took
three bottles from kegs and three from
cases, sealed and delivered them to
Prof Babcock. The latter's analysis
showed . II per cent by weight and
.. G3 by volume IN the keg samples and
2. II by weight and . 20 by volume in
the case sample--ilst about such an
increase from Chapin's analysis AS the
increased age would give it. Both Chap.
in and Babcock testified that there
were $50 teaspoonfuls in pint, so
that tho analysis showed about one
and three fourths teaspoonful of aIco-
mol to pint of water, or less than a
table spoonful to the quart.
But DIR. II. d. Holton testified
hat such a beer wouldn't be intoxica
ing. or that it would require a great
OF of it. with peculiarly bad or ner !
Gus condition of the stomach, to up
ct man. DR.. Conland testified pos
lively that nothing less than .
hree per cent could be called in !
oxicating. and Mr.. Chaplin and
'rof. Babcock also said il was not I
n Intoxicating beverage. They all c
greed that the effect of such quan !
ity OF alcohol diluted in the beer was u
ot SO serious as the same amount O
;ould be in water or clear. because the !
elcrity with which the alcohol works !
5 Il chief element of intoxicatioG. !
All the evidence in the case. there {,
ore, was that the beer was not intoxi l
ating. No one asserted that il was,
nd four experts swore that it was not, Z
bile the analyses of all were in prac-
ical agreement But Fits sprung a P
urprisc by introducing as witness Z
iastave Brumer. now an employe of the q
Brewing Co.. but for two d
cars and two months before last June G
4 the employ of the Highland Brew.
AZ Co., who make the Eddy hop beer. e. e.
Ie was discharged by the Highland Fl
as he said, because he "
drank too much and talked too
luch. Tcstifying through an inter q
refer, he said the ingredients of this ci
Ger were malt, hops and water, that II
c had helped make it, and it was Y
adc just like any lager except that Il M
igger proportion OF it was water. W
owever truthful he may have been in ST
ating the fact he very quickly ex S;
ibited the extent of his knowledge of
lie subject by saying that the use of bo
alt was the only way he knew of to W,
axe any beer, when the fact is that III
lere arc great many beers made ST
ithout the use of particle of malt, mt
id among them in years past have mi
zen some that pretended to be lager. 20 ~
The Justice. however, believed his he
atement of facts and gave judgment ga
M
Eddy & Co., have taken an appeal
I'd are going to let the supreme court ~,
eide whether the law contains any ~.
ch absurdity as appears on its face. FL
Tho arguments made Tuesday were sb
minute ones, by Fits for the state, 81
ID Geo B. Hit and Col. Haskins for -
c defense. The two latter argued that ~.
here the statute says Intoxicating ~
spirituous liquors Z" or malt o -"
Iuors or lager beer it really means ii,
alt liquors or beers that are intoyi rn
ting. But while the court seemed hn
believe that this was the common rr
nse view, and the view he should take v,
he had tc press on it finally. he per nn
red TO let the supreme court read ~
to the law what ought to he found -.
ere. -
ira