The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1910-06-01
Difference OF OPINION
AS TO COURTS RULING
Generally Believed That The Beverage
Will Be Sold in Number of Towns,
While Local Authorities May Inter
fere in Others.
Special to The NetUS.

Special to The Net0s.
Jackson, Miss, June despite the
fact that difference of opinion has
arisen among attorneys in interpreting
the Supreme Court decision on the
near beer question, arrangements
are being made in several towns of
the state to reopen establishments
for the sale of this much discussed
beverage, and indications are that the
various brands will become quite pop
ular during the summer months.
The Supreme Court in the leading
opinion by Associate Justice Ander-
son, and the opinion of concurrence
by Chief Justice Mayes, unquestion-
ably held that persons charged with
violating the statutory prohibition law
by selling near beer are entitled to
an instruction that the jury must ac-
quit unless it is shown that the bev-
erage in question, when drunk to ex-
cess will produce intoxication.
! The irreconcilable feature, how
ever, is the rather unique and original
conclusion reached by Chief Justice.
| Mayes that it all depends on the pur-
! pose for which a man buys one OF
| these beverages that if he purchases
/ it merely to get cold drink, it can
not be claimed that it is an intoXi-
eating beverage, but if the person
drinks the beverage to excess for the
purpose of producing intoxication,
then the law has been violated,
Chief Justice Mayes declined to
concur with Justice Anderson in over
turning the decision of the Supreme
Court formerly rendered in the case
of Edwards vs. City of Gulfport, in
which it was held that it was proper
to instruct a jury to convict an ac-
cused, regardless of whether it had
been shown that the beverage, If
drunk to excess, would produce intox-
ication And, as Justice Smith en-
phatically dissented from all conclus-
ions reached by his colleaguesA 1t
would seem that the court is not at all
clear on this important point.
Nearly all the near beer establish
ments operating in Mississippi. prior
to the decision in the case of Edwards
VS.. City of Gulfport, which put them
out of business, were selling bev-
erage that contained from a fraction
of one per cent to about three per
cent of alcohol Necessarily, it would
take very large quantity of such
beverage to produce any degree OF
intoxication, or to show outward ef-
fects on the drinker. However, a
goodly number of establishments
adopted the custom Of mixing real
beer with the near beer, and dis
pensed the genuine stuff to favored
patrons, either with labels or utterly
devoid of labels, and thus making 1t
impossible to detect the real from the
genuine unless submitted to chemical
analysis. O..
While the Supreme Court decision
is unquestionably a victory for the
near-beer dealers. despite the dog
fall between Justicess Anderson and
Mayes. 1t Is more than likely that in
some communities where prohibition
sentiment is very strong the local
authorities will keep the lid on and
promptly raid all establishments that
attempt to reopen. In other com
munities, where the decision Is inter
preted as an unequivocal victory
dealers have already ordered supplies
and are arranging to reopen their es
Establishments.
When the contention is made thai
t conviction cannot be secured without
proof of intoxication. or where Il u
1