The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-07-24

beer as intoxicating and merely made sure that it was covered by the law in case dispute arose. The law surely included beer and showed that con gress understood it to be intoxicat- ing.
 After quoting several recent deci- sions in cases brought to test the val idity of the war time prohibition act, the opinion concludes:
 Ut is apparent that no court has held that congress did not intend at the time of passing this law to pro- hibit lager beer containing any amount of alcoholic content sufficient to make it taxable by the revenue department, sufficient to bring it within the gen. eral definition of lager beer known from past experiences and sufficient to bring the act within the prohibition of the selective service law which prohibited the sale of "any intoxicat- ing liquors including wine and beer"
 Tn other words, the statute intend ed to conserve food, to increase the man power of the nation and to pro- tect the organization of the army pro hibiting the sale of beer which has a tendency to intoxicate to such an ex- tent as to interfere with the morals, the physical welfare or the good order of the community. Whether or not the mere sale of malt beer even though it has not sufficient alcoholic content to fully intoxicate is of itself detri- mental, whether the sale such li- quor (even though it would not full ly intoxicate) is disadvanta geous from the standpoint of the conservation of food are things with which the court has nothing to do. That is a question for the calm discretion of congress and it is evident congress intended by the act under consideration to pro- hibit the sale of any such beer.
 The period during which this law can be enforced must be more or less brief. Even if it should continue until the prohibition amendment to the constitution shall take effect, the period Is not long, But congress has the power at any time to modify the statute and congress has also the pow CT to pass a law Interpreting the statute if beer which has a tendency to pro tuce intoxication Gin the sense of affecting control over the insen- abilities, muscles emotions of an individual but will not fully intoxi- cate) is rot the substance intended to be prohibited.
 "If on trial on the merits it shall appear that lager beer in question is not an intoxicating nature and is not what congress evidently meant to prohibit, the matter can be disposed of as a question of fact but the court must instruct the jury as to the mean ing of the statute. Such a question could not be, however, raised by ad- mitting that the beer sold is a pro duct of malt containing over one half of one per cent. of alcohol and by objecting to that information, while following the language of the state and the thought of congress, does not also charge that such substance is intoxicating
 mo account of the charge of selling liquor could be directed in case the jury round that the person receiving the liquor would not be in toxicated thereby. The only defense would be that no person could receive any intoxicating effect therefrom or fin other words that 1t was not beer of the sort which congress had in mind in using the word beer in the meaning of that word as used at the time of the passage of the act in other words any kind of malt beer which was in the legal sense an in toxicating liquor as congress and public usageu understood the term. It could never be intended to leave to each jury the right to decide what 1t considered intoxicating liquor and on the contrary it was not intended to leave to a jury the right to say what congress meant.
 "Under the internal revenue laws and all standards by which congress could have viewed the matter the beer described in the present infor- nation was of the class known as in toxicating liquor. and as such,, its sale was prohibited"