Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1908-05-07
JUDGE SPEER AND COURT OF
APPEALS.

Near beer" may go as a temper
ance drink with the State courts, but
Judge Speer insists that it will not
go down with his court The man
who sells near beer" and fails to
comply with the federal government
requirements is very apt to find him
self in the coils of the law in a court
where there is no nonsense about
anything, to-wit, the District Court
over which Judge Speer presides.
In his remarks to the Grand Jury
of his court Judge Speer paid his
compliments to the Georgia Court
of Appeals, relative to its recent ac-
ton as regards this and other drinks
of the same class. Said Judge Speer:
That near beer" ruling by the
Georgia Court of Appeals-with all
respect to the judges of that tribun-
al-was not necessary to the decision
of the case, and was, therefore,
dfctum, and it is contrary to a decis-
ion by the Supreme Court of Georgia,
which is controlling in the national
courts in the construction of State
statute. 1t has practically authoriz-
ed the establishment of the saloon
in the State of Georgia, and 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 the other kinds of intoxicants.
The near beer" gentlemen pay the
tax to Uncle Sam, or they are indict-
ed. For what? AS dealers in malt
liquor, and yet the statute of the
State of Georgia says that cit shall
not be lawful for any person within
the limits of this State to sell or bar
ter for valuable consideration, either
directly or indirectly, or give away
to induce trade at any place of bust
ness or keep or furnish at any other
pubic places or manufacture, or
keep on hand at their place of bust
ness any alcoholic, spirituOus, malt
or intoxicating liquors or intoXicat
ing bitters.
Is not near beer" a malt liquor?
1t is fermented. The word malt
means a liquor which is made by the
| fermentation of malt, and it does not
make any difference how little alcohol
there is in it, or whether it is intoXi-
eating or not, when the language eX-
pressly declares that it shall be a VIC
| lation of law to sell malt" liquor.
While 1 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 disregarded en-
| tirely the decision of the Supreme
| Court of Georgia, in EaVes against
the State, 113 Georgia Reports, page
| 749.
Said Chief Justice Simmons for the
unanimous court:
| Complaint is made that the court
charged that the State did not have
to prove that the liquors sold were
intoxicating, and that it made no diff
| ference whether the liquors were
intoxicating or not. This we think
was not error. The statute made pen
al the unlicensed sale of malt IL
quors, and the offense would be es-
tablished if the State proved such
a sale We cannot see what relevancy
the intoxicating qualities of the Ii
quors could have save in determining
| whether or not they were malt Ii
quors, and as to this court charged
the jury to consider the evidence as
to whether the liquors sold were in
intoxicating, in determining whether
they were malt liquors"