The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-02-24
TAhAAUstR HAS But
TRACE OF ALCOHOL
Chemists for Defendant, w. @. Her.
bert, Declare It IL Not Malt
Beverage.
STATE CHEMIST ON STAND.
Dr. G. NJ. Bradbury Of Opinion That
New Drink should he Included
Among Those Prohigited by the
state.


With a large array of legal talent
on hand in the courtroom. tho trial
of W. G. Herbert. charged with SELL
ing Tanhauser. a soft drink. In viola
ton of the prohibition law. was be-
gun before Judge D. c. Richardson.
In the hustings court yesterday morn
ing. This 10 the first Of the soft
drink cases to. be heard in the higher
court. the other one, against e. A.
French, agent for Alpha, being on
the docket for. later hearing.
Both Herbert and French were In
dicted at the request Of their coun-
sci, In an effort to test the legality
OF the action OF Prohibition Commits
sioner Peters In declaring Alpha, Tan
hauser and Bevo three OF the newer
soft drinks, to be among the list of
malt beverages" outlawed by the
prohibition act. This action was
taken after C. NJ. Bradbury, state
agricultural department chemist, had
declared the drink Illegal The law
firm OF Buchanan & Scott is associat.
ed with the commemorative attor-
ney In the prosecution. while the de-
tense In represented by Harry NJ.
Smith. Jr.. and Murray NJ. Mcclure.
Mr.. Herbert. the defendant, was pres
ent and plead not guilty to the charge
as read.
Declares Drink Illegal.
DR.. Bradbury was first put on the
stand. and his certificate. in which
he officially declared Tanhauser to be
a malt liquor and without the law.
was presented to the court. 1t stated
that his analysis had proven the drink
TO be under ban Of the prohibition act.
DR. Bradbury then produced the
figures of his analysis. after a cross
fire OF objections on the part OF Mr..
Smith as to whether the chemist
should be allowed to give his con-
illusions he had reached in the mat
ter.
The state chemist then defined
malt liquor and gave a recital of
the process by which such a liquid
is brewed He referred to Dr. Par
sons. a chemist and author of wide
reputation, and secretary OF the Amer
lean Chemical society. citing him as
an authority on which he based a
great many OF his statements and de-
ductions on the question OF malt IL
auids NO malt liquor can he made
with the taste. smell and appearance
Of beer he declared. without going
lDIou&N INC mat pTVIEHS ne pro-
duCed a blackboard and outlined in
chalk his tests In the case OF Tan
hauscr Among his figures he found
that the drink contained al per cent
~ alcohol and other ingredients in A
we'll defined ratio,
Tanhauser Indicates" Malt
These figures for Tanhauser he then
compared with figures OF Or. Parsons
on known malt liquors. and II was
l.
that tho results from the analysis OF
Tanha user were strikinGly e.-nilar to
the results Of analysis Of known nalts
lie stated that his certificate pointed
cat that analysis of Tanhauser "indI-
Gates" that the drink - malt drink,
but that il does not say II zig n
matt drink
MIR Scott asked DR.. Bradbury The
difference between Tanhauser and
beer. and the reply was that the diff
ference consisted only in the volume
OF alcohol The taste OF alcohol is
not pronounced in Tanhauser'' he
said. but otherwise it IL similar 10
beer and liz an excellent imitation of
beer" Upon being questioned fur
Their. DIR. Bradbury stated that beer
contains about twenty times as much
alcohol as Tanhauser The cross-ex-
Hmination Of Or. Bradbury occupied
q NONt an nnUT ana 1aii.
Missouri Chemist Called.
The next witness called was DR.
Walter NJ Cross. the municinal chem
ist Of Kansas City. Mo. near which
CITY the plant OF the ROYAL Brewing
eompans, manufacturers OF Tannaus-
er is located. Dr.. Cross stated that
he was entirely familiar with the
process OF making beer nea that he
also was conversant with the Tan
hauser process, having analysed both
beer and Tanhauser and had made
several visits 10 the Tanhauser plant.
ON direct question he replied without
hesitation that there is no malt used
In Tanhauser Me was asked the
workings OF the malt process, and
his reply was similar to that of DR..
Bradbury. He told the fury that
Tanhauser is made from compound
~ rolled corn fakes corn grits. shred
ded hops barley sprouts. and IA
vorlng extract the formula for which
was secret of the company.
He stated emphatically that fer
mentation has no part in the manu-
rscture of Tanhauser. bu. that the
small quantity OF alcohol found in
the drink comes from alcohol in the
fsvoring extract. Alcohol he said.
i. necessary in all havoring extracts.
and is found in small quantities in
n II SurG li1UiuS uSeu Tor uofneSUC puT-
poses The amount OF alcohol in Tan
hauser. he said, is about the same
as found in ordinary ice cream fla
vored with vanilla. His figures OF
The Tanhauser analysis did not coin
eide with the figures or DR.. Bradbury,
the latter being about .2s per cent
f'coho! while those OF the Missouri
.-&mist chowed only about .06 per
cent.
Rcfutes Bradbury's Analysis.
The process OF making Tanhauser
,ioes not resemble the process of maxi
ing any malt liquor" he stated in an
swer to question, and referring to
1,r Rradbury's analysis, he said: "A
substitute can be made with DR. Brad
bury's formula that will have no malt
nor fermentation whatever. There are
Yeast cells always to be found in beer.
Int I have tested Tanhauser for these
cells and save not found the trace of
any" He stated emphatically that
the figures and analysis Of DR.. Brad