Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-06-08
ROME, Ga. June 8. 1908.

ROME, Ga, June 3, 1908.
Editor of The Journal:
In the interest of the truth of his
tory 1 make my respectful but earn
est protest against the following
language emanating from the court of
appeals:
Since the general assembly by the
'near-beer' tax act of 1908, has by
implication expressed the general pol
icy of permitting the sale of near
beer by those who pay the tax, etc,
etc"
The general assembly passed no
'near-beer' tax in 1908. nor did IL, by
implication or otherwise, express any
such general policy of permitting any
such sale. Courts may and can in
sist upon putting such construction
upon what was done, but, so far as
the general assembly is concerned, it
exhausted every resource of caution
and of accuracy in the employment
of words TO avoid that identical con-
struction.
In passing the prohibition law of
1907 the trainers of the bill desired
| to use language about the meaning of
which there could be no doubt, and
they especially desired to eliminate
that fruitful source of perjury that
rests in controversies as to whether
the drink sold would or would not in
toxicate.
Therefore they laid aside their own
preferences and used the identical
| language of the general local option
act of 1885. That language had been
construed by the supreme court 1t
had the sanction of 22 years practice.
! The supreme court had held that all
alcoholic" liquors are intoxicating. 1t
had held that when the law forbids
cole Of lf0nOr evidence
and controversy as to whether, 1t will
intoxicate are irrelevant. Resting in
the abiding conviction that the judi
ciary would stand by the adjudicated
precedents. and that law makers as
well as private persons can depend
upon the stability thereof, the leglsia-
ture chose the very language that the
courts had passed upon, and prohibit
ed the sale of alcoholic" or malt
| liquors.
Down to the 9th day of April. 1908,
the prohibition law worked like 9
charm. Nobody questioned its mean
ing. The brewers and dealers under
stood it perfectly. 1 am reliably in
formed that Mr.. w. I. Hayward, who
has been for years understood to be
the legal representative of those In
terests, called on members Of the leg
islature TO know whether there would
be any chance to secure moolncdIiOn
of the prohibition law that would
permit the sale of beers containing
per cent of alcohol: There was nc
| such chance and I presume 1t was Sc
concluded by the brewing interests
On April 9Th. 1908, the court OF APP
peals promulgated a decision In which
| IT correctly announced that In con-
STRUNG statutes the cardinal rule Is
10 ascertain the legislative intent, and
then decided that under the act OF
1907 one could not be convicted foI
keeping a malt liquor containing
41-5 per cent of alcohol without
proving that 1t would intoxicate.
The establishment with which this
deIiverance was received by those
who knew how careful the effort mac
been to select language which would
negative such a conclusion, ana tne
keen disappointment of the friends OF
nrohibition, were alike justified by tn'
| consequences which resulted.
The decision emasculated the prom
hilton law. The state was fairy
Hooded with liquor. Every village ane
cross road was threatened. The hq'
nor thus passed upon was sold In VIZ