Republican farmer., 1919-07-25
SALE OF WEAK BEER IS
 VIOLATION DF DRY LAW
 FEDERAL COURT HOLDS
NEW HAVEN LIQUOR DEALER ARRAIGNED BEFORE JUDGE CHATFIELD-FINDIN TODAY OF COURT STARTLES LOCAL
 DEALERS WHO HAVE KEPT OPEN.

low reStruction of the liquor traffic and the prohibition of alcoholic bev- eraEes.
 Ut is apparent that the intent of the congress was to prohibit the sale of those malt products which were commonly known as beer, and which were also commonly supposed to be intoxicating, which had always been classified as an intoxicating liquor and which because of their alcoh ollie con- tent had some effect upon the pro- duction and man power of the nation while at the same time using in their manufacture some of the food pro- ducts of the nation which were needed for the purposes of the war and for the purpose of restoring conditions at the termination of hostilities so far as congress had power to regulate condf- tions after the war as a part of it's military operation and conduct.
 ''It is evident that if congress by making a tremendous drain upon the resources of the country for imm edfate war purposes should thereby make l. necessary to regulate the use of mater ial immediately thereafter in order to bring matters back to a normal base the laws by which such restoration would be had can properly be made a part of the military measure which must be adopted in order to carry on the war and are therefore justified under the power of the United States in waging war, as had been decided in the case of the United States against Winery in that district in an opinion filed upon this day"
 "Congress had it in mind" the op- inion asserts. "to say beer or any other product of malt of an intoxicating na- ture." The thought was that expressed in the selective service law, which says no intoxicating liquor, including beer. ale or wine But either state ment would suggest that congress classified and intended to classify. beer as intoxicating and merely made sure that 1t 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:
 Tt 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 as 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"
 "In other words, the statute intend ed to conserve food. to increase the man power of the nation and to pro- tect the organizati tion 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 orler of the community. Whether or not the mere sale of malt beer even though 1t has not sufficient alcoholic content to fully intoxicate Is of itself detrt- mental, whether the sale such H. auor (even though 1t would not full ! ly intoxicate) is disadvantageous 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 1t is evident congress intended by 1 the act under consideration to pro-
 hibit the sale of any such beer.
 "The period during which this law 1 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 modi4y the l statute and congress has also the pow l CT to pass law interpreting the | statute if beer which has a tendency | to produce intoxication Gin the sense | of affecting control over the insen-
 abilities, muscles or emotions of an | individual but will not fully intoxi-
 cate) is not the substance intended to be prohibited.
 of 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 l-prohibit, the matter can be disposed
 of as a question of fact but the court
 must instruct the jury to the mean ing of the statute. Such a question
 could not be. however, raised by ad- hitting that the beer sold is pro-
 duct of malt containing over one hall