Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-09-13
. &4<++%++++<%++<+

Corroborating the view taken by the
Star.BuIletin since the provisions Oh
the national food law became known
here, that the manufacture OF sake
was prohibited under the hquor
clause in the measure, and uphold'
ing a similar opinion expressed by D.
F. Child, assistant executive officer
OF the territorial food commission
published in this paper on August ~
the foregoing despatch from the otaT-
Bulletins Washington correspondent
outlines more fully why the Japanese
beverage is regarded in the same light
as whisky. The first intimation homo
lulu had that sake would be included
in the food law ban was given Dy
the Star-Bulletin in the interview Win
Mr.. Child, August q, despite the ell
forts of a morning paper to steal the
credit for an exclusive news story.
When the text of the national tood
law, and especially that OF section 10,
known as the liquor clause, reacneo
Honolulu, the Star-Bulletin raised the
question as to whether the manu-
facture of sake would be prohiolted'
the liquor, being made from rice,
valuable food product. The 1urtler
question was raised whether sake was
\ brewed or a distilled liquor. the
iiouor clause specifically stating that
the manufacture of distilled spirits
were to be barred. This led to a
third question, whether sake couid
be barred for the reason that the
rice used in its manufacture Is I'M
ported from japan. ...a -.
On August 80, after having pub
lished Mr.. Child's statement and SUD-
seouent articles on sake published IN
this paper, local Japanese sake brew
cries expressed to the Star-Bulletln
a willingness to suspend business
should II be learned definitely that
the manufacture Of sake would pc
barred.
Despite the fact that federal, Gus
toms and revenue officials expressed
The opinion that sake would not De
barred, holding that 1t is not dis.
titled spirit, the Star-Bulletin adhered
to the stand originally taken. This
stand is now upheld, both by the
despatch received today from Mr.. Al
bert and by another despatch on the
same question received and published
yesterday.
On September 8 Fsaerar Food Com.
missioner Al. w. HanseA expressed
the opinion that sake would not come
under the food control law The
ground for this opinion was that sake
Is a brewed and not q distilled hq-
nor. On the same day U. s. Attorney
s C.. Huber expressed the opinion
that. II sake was brew, it undoubted-
ly would not be included in the liz
nor clause.
On September the Star-Bulletin
published an interview from federal
officials to the effect that the manu-
facture of sake In Hawaii would not
interfere with the food situation for
the reason that all rice used for this
purpose is imported from Japan. In
this connection 1t has been asserted
that Hawaiian-grown rice has been
found unfit for the manufacture OF
the beverage.
On September 10 the Star-Bulletin
obtained from Acting Collector of In
iternal Revenue Ralph tombstone al
opinion to the effect that sake would
not come under the food control law.
He classed the beverage as brew,
but added that it was termed wine"
by the revenue department for the
purpose of collecting taxes.
On September IL Acting Collector
of Customs Raymer Sharp expressed
the opinion that sake would not come
under the federal government ban and
that IT could be imported to Hawaii
from Japan as in the past. MI.
Sharp classed the liquor as q brew.
Yesterday the Star-Bulletin received
from its Washington correspondent a
despatch to the effect that the manu-
facture of sake would be barred by
the food control law. The despatch
toda. more specifically tells why. Dis
trict Attorney Huber declared yester
day that. In his opinion, the importa-
tion of sake will be barred If its man.
ufacture here is prohibited.