The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-10-15
That Which Locks Like. Smells
Like and 1setes Like Beer
Under Ban of Law
ITS SALE WOULD OPEN
DOOR TO VIOLATIONS
Both State and United States
Supreme Court Decisions
Uphold Ruling Rules Also
on Alcoholics Permissible

Attorney-Generai John Garland Pol
lard. In an opinion rendered yester-
day to ]. Sidney Peters. prohibition
commissions, declared that non-in-
toxicating malt liquors. came under
the design. on of malt liquors, and
as such the are prohibited from sale
IN Virginia under the prohibition act
passed by the last session Of the Cen
eral Asse bly,. The attorney gem
erals ruling was made after a care
full study OF previous decisions Of the
Supreme Court OF Appeals of Viz
ginia. and the courts in other States.
which confirm his opinion.
The opinion Is the most far reach
Ing of the many opinions which the
attorney general has delivered on
the prohibition act, which goes into
effect on November Is.
Near Beer Defeats End of Law.
In some Of the States where pro-
hibition has been adopted. numerous
near beer saloons have sprung up
claiming 70 sell non -intoxicating malt
liquor. which looks like beer, smells
Pike beer AMI tastes Ike beer. hut
which fig not IL xxi atinR On account
eli the siyuiiaE > in appearance be-
tween, near beyr and zeal beer the Of
frers rhs rged with the enforcement
of the law FOUND IL difficult 10 detect
sales OF beer containing alcohol
These ncar- beer saloons were en-
gagged the sale OF all kinds of In
toxicatinr liquors, hut Il was difficult
to secure a conviction. The existence
of these saloons brought the prohi-
titior law into d!srepute and made It
necessary to enact new prohibition
D laws in order to prevent dealers from
selling intoxicating liquors under the
ptsfS nf raEY.haar n
posedly harmless drinks.
+ Wherever prohibition has gone into
effect the States have been flooded
with so-called Notwithstanding bev-
erages which were used as subter-
fuges TO make more diff1cult the de-
lection Of unlawful sales.
The General Assembly of Virginia
In defining the term ardent spirits
,prohibited by the new act. declared
that all malt liquors should be in
l Guided in the definition OF the pro-
hbited beverages
As soon as Commissioner Peters
/ took oath of Office in September the
large manufacturers OF matt liquors
. claimed to be Notwithstanding, en-
ploye6 agents throughout the State
| 10 handle their product, which Is de-
signed to be substitute for beer.
| The question. therefore. arose wheth-
err these malt beverages could be sold
and the question submitted to At
.orney General Pollard was whether
| the bill prohibited the sale OF malt
liquors made without fermentation
and containing absolutely no alcohol.
Point Already Settled.
Fortunately the Supreme Court Of
Appeals of Virginia had already
passed upon n similar question a"'s-
Ing under the Byrd liquor law. he
court in the case of Commonwe tn
vs. Goodwin. 10s Va. App, s2s, s32,
declared that It was well settled that
the term matt liquor includes both in
foxicating and non-intoxicating malt
liquors..
The newt question which the attor-
hey-gene al had to decide was wheth-
er the State had the power under
the Federal Constitution to prohibit
the sale Of malt beverage which was
not Intoxicating. This same question
had already arisen in the State OF
Mississippi. and tho Supreme Court
OF that State upheld the Mississ ppi
statute. An appeal was taken to the
supreme Court of the United States
on tho ground that the prohibiting OF
Ahe sale of perfectly harmless, nu-
frftious malt liquor was violation
OF the fourteenth amendment against
taking liberty or property without due
process of law. The drink there in
volyed was kpOwl as poinsetta. The
case was tried on an agreed state OF
facts. wherein 1t was stated that the
Dirk was wholesome and nutritious
and did not contain alcohol or sac
che inc ms tier. and that its taste and
odor was distinctive and that it's ap-
pearance Is such that It would not
rrotabi he fnistallen for any intoxi-
eating liquor.
Eaghes Delivered Opinion.
Mr.. Justice Hughes, now candidate
of the Republican party for president.
delivered the opinion OF the court in
the case of Extract and r. Company
Ms Lynch. eS U. S. 1874, 1877. and
said:
1T is also we'll established that
when a State exercising its recog-
nixcd authority undertakes to sup
press what 1t IL free to regard as a
public evil, 1t may adopt such meas
ures having reasonable relation TO
that end as it may deem necessary in
order to make it's action effective.
Il does rot follow that because a
Transaction. separately considered. is
lnnocuous, 1t may not be included in
= prohibition and scope Of which ID
regarded az essential In the legisla-
ffye Judgment to accomplish a pur-
nose within tho admitted power OF
The government - 1t IL compe-