The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-08-05
TEN JUDGES
 DECIDE 2.75
 BEER LEGAL. Anti Wartime Prohibition Forces Survey Court De- cisions Throughout
 Country. CLAIM VICTORY
 IN THE COURTS Only One Judge They As sert, Held That the Pres ent Law Forbids Non- Intoxicating Beer.

Washington, Aug 4.--So many diff l ferent cities are meeting the wartime @ prohibition restrictions in so many diff 1 ferent ways that q survey of the situ- ation has been made by the anti-war- | time prohibition forces in order to ' set before the country the facts in l regard to the decisions which have | been made in various Federal Court ! jurisdictions. They claim a prepon- 1 derance of legal sentiment against ! the jailing of a citizen, under the pres- ent law. for the sale of 2.75 beer which
 is still being sold in New York and
 other large wet communities as well
 as in a majority of the smaller wet ! centres. Here is the finding:
 l Fourteen United States Judges have dealt with this question Ten of them have held that the statute does not forbid non-intoxicating beer. . One Judge has held that the statute does forbid non-intoxicating beer; a { second Judge has held that while it prohibits only intoxicating beer. any
 thing which is called beer must be assumed to be intoxicating. The re- maining Judges have rendered deci- sions on the question of pleading, and on the main question involved have taken a neutral position, because they
 state it was not their duty to decide
 that question at the particular stage which the proceedings had reached
 when they were required to make a | dectsi on."
 was rendered by Judge A. N. Hapd of of New York on May IT. declare the antis. After a careful review of the legal authorities and a thorough Cds- ! cusslon of the question involved. Judge ' Hand reached the conclusion that the wartime prohibition act was intended 1 to prohibit only such liquors as are in fact intoxicating, and actually did | prohibit only such liquors.
 Tn the course of the proceedings in | the same cases the matter came up | before another United States Judge in ! New York City, Judge Mayer After argument before him he gave the complainant brewing companies a ' temporary injunction against the Government on the ground that the statute forbade only beer which was intoxicating, and that the proofs sub mitted to the court by the complain ants on the preliminary hearing were sufficient to justify the preliminary | finding that beer containing not in | excess of PTS per cent of alcohol by weight is not intoxicating.
 | Thereafter the Government ap- pealed to the United States Circuit ! OouIL Ol AIyedlS TOT the SecO1nI CIT
 cult. Three United States Judges heard the case and rendered opinions. ] Their unanimous conclusion was that the wartime prohibition act prohibit . ed only intoxicating liquors. and that beer which is not intoxicating in fact,
 was not prohibited by that statute ! "A sixth judge came to the same 1 conclusion. This was Judge Rose of
 Baltimore who made the first decision f,r
 | ton. Judge Rose reached the same
 decision as the five New York judges. | In the course of his decision, he
 said:
 Five of the judges of the Second circuit have each expressed the opfn- | ion that 1t (the wartime prohibition
 act) has no relation to anything
 which Is not intoxicating. have ! profound respect for their opinions
 not only because they are judges, but
 because they are unusually able | men"
 The seventh United States judge
 the construction of the statute was
 Judge Anderson of Boston.
 The United States District Judge
 In New Orleans, was the eighth Unit
 ed States Judge to come to this con-
 clusion. The ninth judge. who was
 Judge Brown of Providence. R. T.,
 also held that the wartime prohibit
 ton act does not forbid non-intoxi-
 eating beer. The tenth similar decis-
 ion was by Judge Sawtelle of San
 Francisco.
 Five of the aforementioned
 judges were dealing with criminal
 cases. in which the United States gov
 ernment filed informant lions or indict-
 ments charging that the defendant
 had manufactured beer. In none of
 these cases did the United States a1- lego in its indictment or information that the beer which was involved ir the case was intoxicating beer. The same was true in four other cases in } which decisions have been rendered : by United States judges
 '"The result in the other four : cases was different, and ir two of those other four cases the decision was based expressly on the question } of pleading. These two cases were l brought in Pittsburgh and Philadel- . phia. The Pittsburgh decision was by Judge Thomson, and was followed by the Philadelphia decision, handed P down by Judge Dickinson. He states 5 expressly that he Is following the de- 7 cision of Judge Thomson and his , reasons, and therefore reference to Judge Dickinson's decision will ex- . plain both his decision and the de-
 cision of Judge Thomson of Pitts burgh. Judge Dickinson refers again and again in his opinion to the fact I that the case is really one for ad- vising both the government and the 3 defendants as to the meaning of the . statute, and he says that he does
 not deem 1t the duty of the court
 under existing circumstances, to per l form such a function.
 "Of the two remaining decisions
 one is by Judge Chatfield rendered
 in a criminal case in New Haven. He
 states in the course. of his optnior l that he desires to follow the decision
 of the Circuit Court of Appeals. but