Republican farmer., 1919-07-25

New York, July 24.-Beer of 2.75 per cent. alcoholic content is held to be intoxicating with in the meaning of the war time prohibition act n a decision re- turned by Federal Judge Thom- as I. Chatfield of Brooklyn, in a test case brought by the gov ernment against M a Tt 1 n Schmauder of New Haven, Conn, who was charged with selling beer in violation of the war time prohibition law.
 Soi.nauder demurred to the gov ernnenrs charge on the ground that the Information against him did not to have been sold was intoxicating. Jaise Chatfield overruled the demur- Ter and ordered that schmauder must plead to the indictment.
 Under the internal revenue laws all standards by which congress could have viewed the matter the beer des- cribed in the present information C27s per cont. beer was Cf the class known as intoxicating liquor, and as such its sale was prohibited" says the opinion.
 constitationality of the war time prohibition act was upheld in an opin- ion handed down yesterday by Judge Chatfield in a test case against Ste phen A. Winery. a Meriden, Conn.,. sa- loon keeper Rulings were sought in each instance by the Liquor Dealers Association of Connecticut.
 Hearings on the two suits were re- gently held In New Haven whereJudge ChatAsld sat in the place of Feder- al Judge Edwin s. Thomas of Con- necticut. It is reported an appeal will be taken in each case.
 The government information, the opinion today says, does not include the word Intoxicating and the de- rendant seeks by this demurrer to ob- tain a ruling that no crime can be committed by the sale of a I alt pro- duct containing alcohol and being of the general class which has been and is sold over the bar in saloons as beer. but which is that sort of beer now manufactured by the brewers since the restriction upon the use of grain, and which does not contain as much as 2.75 per cent alcohol
 Wb8 ATBueu the SuppOTI Oi the demurrer that such beer was not in fact intoxicating for the reason thai before a person could obtain a suffi- ciont quantity of alcohol to intoxicate he would have to drink to such an one time. whether intoxicaton could extent as to make him ili. or to ex- coed the capacity of consumption al be produced by taking the beer fir small quantities over a longer period or time or whether some individual might be intoxicated by one quanti- ty while others would not be affected by the saue quantity cannot be ascer' tafncd from the information nor from the demurrer.
 Tt fs apparent that there is noth. inr in this record from which tn, court can determine in any way wha amount of alcoholic content would suake beer intoxicating and wha would not.
 sThs demurrer has admitted tn facts alleged in the information Tn defendant has thereby admitted tha he made a sale of beer which is product of malt and which is com rnonly known as lager.
 ssrhsrefore tho only point presente' ,pon this demurrer to the information is whether 1t is necessary to allege fl an information that the beer sold wa Intoxicating. The information doe state that 1t contains alcohol and is malt product and to this extent an, in this way the material is exclude from the class of non alcoholic bev eraees such as root beer and othe varieties of home made or harmles drfnks which are not the product O malt
 The statute expressly limits tn effect of this portion of the law t products of malt and vinous fermenta tion. This of itself initiates agains the idea that the sole purpose of tn stsAute was to conserve food and in dfcates that a part of the purpose wa to accomplish prohibition with the in c1dsnta1 beneficial result upon tn haal.h of the nation and the increas in orderly behavior which the advc ostss of prohibition believe will fol