The Dawson news. (Dawson, Ga.) 1889-current, 1908-05-20
SpEER ON NEAR BEER.
In Charging Federal Grand Jury He
Criticized Georgia Decision.

In a recent charge to the district
| federal court at Macon Judge Emory
| Speer directed the indictment of all
persons selling what is known as
| near-beer' without the government
| special tax required of all dealers
in spirituous and malt drinks. He
advised the grand jury that the rul-
ing of the Georgia Court of
Appeals that the prohibition law did
not apply to the sale of 'near-beer
drinks was not to be considered, and
declared that the court had erred in
this point he said:
That 'near-beer' ruling by the
Georgia Court of Appeais-with all
| respect to the judges of that tribunal
was not necessary to the decision
OF the case, and was, therefore. a
dlctum. and it is contrary to a de-
clslOn by the Supreme Court of Geor-
gla, which is controlling in the ma
tiOnal courts in the construction of
state statute. 1t has practically
the saloon in the state or Georgia
ana a saloon without paying to the
state any tax at all. A man can get
just as drunk on that 'near-beer,' if
he drinks enough, as on other kinds
of intOxicants.
The 'near-beer' gentlemen pay
the tax to Uncle sam, or they are
indicted. For what? AS dealers in
malt liquor, and yet the statute of
the state of Georgia says that it shall
not be lawful for any person within
the limits of this state to sell or
barter for valuable consideration.
either directly or indirectly, or give
away to induce trade at any place of
business, or keep or furnish at any
other public places or manufacture,
or keep on hand at their place of
business any alcoholic, spirituous,
malt or intoxicating liquors or intox-
icating bitters
rs not 'near-beer' a malt liquor?
1t is fermented. The word malt
means liquor which is made by the
fermentation of malt, and it does
not make any difference how little al
cohol there is in it, or whether it
is intoxicating or not, when the lam
guage expressly declares that it shall
be violation of law to sell malt
liquor. While | have great respect
for the Court of Appeals, and while
they write most graceful opinions,
and while this 'near-beer' decision
is very charming in style, and makes
many references to old masters of
the law, it seems TO have diSrepard-
ed entirely the decision of the Su-
preme Court of Georgia, in Eaves
against the State, 113 Georgia Re-
ports, page 749.
Continuing, Judge opeer said:
Here is the story: Spectacle of
the United States gathering into it's
treasury taxes for the sale of these
very malt liquors, these 'near-beers,'
which by virtue of the decision of a
Georgia court are now found on sale
at nearly every crossroads in Geor-
gia, and not one cent is paid to the
state of Georgia, which has forbid
den the sale of malt liquors abso-
lutely. This great encouragement
to the manufacturers and dealers in
malt liquors, and the resulting in
crease of drunkenness, flows from the
unnecessary and unwarrantable at
tempt to construe the state statute,
so that such malt liquors" may be
sold. If they are said to be not in
toXicating, when the statute plainly
forbids the sale of all malt liquors
whatever, whether intoxicating or
! mot"