The Jimplecute. (Jefferson, Tex.) 18??-1907, 1906-07-21
WHAT rs BEERY"


that he knows the answer until the
question comes up in court room in
the course of trial for violation of
the excise law. Then he discovers that
neither he nor any one else knows what
beer is.
The courts have, as yet, established
no test, scientific or empiric, by which
the true character of liquid, having all
the external symptoms of beerishness,
can be certainly determined. 1t is of
considerable Importance that they
should do 30 with all convenient speed,
since until they take this step every
prosecution for violation of the excise
law involving beer or alleged beer, will
be farce, even as now.
The same remarks apply to ale, whis-
key in all its varieties, and all other
more or less intoxicating fluids COM
monty dispensed over bars and grouped
by prohibitionists under the generic
term rum" Because these cases are
of less practical importance than that of
beer, Because, for some mysterious
reason, violators of the excise law have
a remarked preference for beer as a
medium of violation. The police court
records show that the man arrested for
ellegal selling is almost invariably
charged with selling beer. Once IN
great while whiskey is the corpus de-
licti," but the whiskey cases are 80 few
that they may be fairly regarded as
merely constituting the exception that
proves the rule. Beer is really impor-
tant matter, and, TO make the excise
laws worth while,it is necessary only to
provide some means for making the true
nature of alleged beer legally demon
strable.
AS matters stand, it isn't demonstra-
BILE, and in consequence the excise laws
are scarcely worth the space they &C.
cupy in the statute books.
To illustrate practically the difficulty
caused by the remissness of the courts
in this particular: A man conducts an
establishment for the retailing of beer.
His place of business is plastered all
over, within and without, with an
nouncements informing the public that
beer is procurabe there. He holds
himself out as vender of beer. His
customer asks for beer and pays for
beer. He receives liquid that looks
llhC DCcIy buSli5 Ike D6GT, IdbtGS ike
beer, and produces the characteristic
If the liquid is sold legally there is not
the least shadow of doubt in my mind
that it Is beer, and the beer merchant
would be highly indignant if any one
should venture to assert that it is not
beer. But if this same liquid is sold il
legally five minutes afterward, and out
of the same original package-and the
beer seller is caught at 1.-THE character
of the liquid as beer or non-beer in
stantly becomes matter of doubt so
grave and insoluble that it practically
impossible to convict the accused of H.
legally selling beer, unless he finds it
cheaper to pay his fine than to hire
lawyer sufficiently learned in the law to
be able to put to the witness against his
client the question, "Will you swear it
was beer?" OF course, the witness
can't swear it was beer. He has no
means of knowing in the absence of any
accepted test for beer, that it was not
some mysterious compound having all
the outward and visible signs of beer,
but in reality, no more beer than wood
alcohol is alcohol. That question is
now the end of about every defended
prosecution for an alleged violation of
the excise law. The prisoner is dis
charged without stain upon his char
acter or a smirch upon his license. This
absurdity will continue until some pc.
lice magistrate has sufficient common
sense and rudimentary knowledge of
the law of evidence 10 rule out the fatal
question as incompetent, irrelevant,
absurd. illogical and Objectionable in
every possible way in which question
can be Objectionable.
When man enters the business es-
tabl ishment of one who holds himself
out as yender of beer, asks for beer,
pays for beer. and is served with a
liquid that looks like beer, smells like
beer, tastes like beer, and is represented
by the beer seller to be beer, proof of
these facts establishes "prima facie"
case of beer selling against the defend
ant and throws upon him the burden
of proof 1t is his business to over
throw the ''prima facie" case against
him by evidence of the true character
of the liquid that he sold as beer and
received pay for rs beer. And If he can
prove beyond the shadow of doubt
that the liquid was not beer, but merely
a colorado imitation of beer, the fact
should be held TO be no defense. For
he has proven himself guilty of fraud
and should not be permitted to derive
advantage from his own wIong-doing.
The beer merchant should be made to
feel that if he would keep himself out
of the clutch of the excise law he must
avoid even the appearance of Illegal
beer selling.
There is no legal justification what
ever for the present practice in excise
cases which makes a mockery of the
exciee laws, and rouses certain sus-
picion that elected magistrates permit
the fool question, "Will you swear it
was beer?" less out of respect for the
law than out of regard for the saloon
vote Rochester IN. " Democrat and
Chronicle.
II Ii Il