New-York tribune., 1919-06-24
Beer Suit Ans1ver
Is Filed by Caffey

United States Attorney Francis G..
Caffey, who, with Collector Of Internal
Revenue Richard McElligott, is de-
fendant in the injunction proceedings
brought by the Jacob Hoffman Brewing
Company, filed his answer yesterday in
the Federal District Court. The brew
ers, action is designed to restrain Mr..
Catfey and his co-defendant from inter
fering with the manufacture or sale Of
2A per cent beer.
In his answer Caffey asserts that
the suit is brought against the United
States without its consent, and seeks
decree court in equity is without
jurisdiction to grant.
Mr.. Caffey then states that "the pro-
hibltion against the use of food prod
ucts IN the manufacture or production
OF beer with an alcoholic content in
excess Of 2A per cent by weight is still
In effect, but that such. prohibition ex-
lists solely by force of proclamation,
the provision of Section Is of the act
of August 10, 1917, and does not exist
and never did exist by virtue of any
dec1slon,. rule or regulation of the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue"
In answering that part of the COM
plant which alleges that the 2% per
cent beer is not intoxicating, Mr..
Caffey says:
"This defendant is advised that the
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue is
not and has never been authorized by
toxicating, or what alcoholic content.
IT any, is required to render a berer-
age Intoxicating within the meaning
OF the Act Of November 21, 1918. Also
that said Commissioner is not and
has never been authorized by law to
prohibit persons from qualifying as
brewers where the alcoholic content
OF their product at any time during
the process of manufacture equals or
exceeds one-half Of l per cent by
volume.
"Also that the said commissioners
is not and has never been authorized
to determine the question whether.
under the act of November 21, 1918.
IT Is or has been unlawful for a brewer
after May /, 1919, to use anv of the
materials named in that act in the
manufacture Of beer
but this defendant Is advised and
believes, and so alleges, that, irrespec-
Tive OF the provisions of the Treasury
dec1s1ons OF February and March 13
1Sf9, any brewer may now and will be
able to qualify as such, be licensed, and
carry on the manufacture, production
and sale of beer, without limitation O,
interference and without regard ia
what may be the alcoholic content of
his product, provided that such alco.
hollc content does not exceed 81 per
cent by weight, if he pays the taxes re.
quired by him by law, and otherwise
complies with the provisions Of the
Internal Revenue laws And that there
is not in existence any provision OF
any decision, rule or regulation of the
| Commissioner of Internal Revenue un-
der which failure to comply with the
fourth subdivision of section l Of the
act Of November 21, 1919, as inter
preted by the Commissioner, will be
by him or any Of his subordinates, by
any government official or employe
treated as ground for cancelling the
license of brewer or otherwise in re-
spect for interfering with him or his
propertyif he takes the risk of prose
cution under the act Of November Fl
1918, in the event he violates the same
The defendant asserts that he ha.
never made any thrat against the COM
plainnant to enforce any provision of
the Internal Revenue laws or that i
was his purpose to seize or cause to
be seized any of the beer or othe,
! property of the brewers