New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-05-18
Brewers Win
First Skirnish
In Legal Fight


controversy taken by Attorney General
Palmer, who informed the Commits
soner of Internal Revenue last week
that the manufacture of any sort Of
beer was in violation OF the law and
should be so treated. The opinion of
the Attorney General, which was a
strict literal Interpretation of the war
time prohibition act, was severe
blow to beer and near-beer makers.
Roper's Decision in Way
Attorney General Palmer's pro-
nouncement followed a decision on war
time prohibition rendered by Commits
sioner of Internal Revenue Roper, who
said on February last that within in
tent Of the act beverage containing
one-half Of l per cent or more of
alcohol by volume would be regarded
as Intoxicating,
In his decision, Judge Hand referred
to the Treasury Departments interpre--
tation of the act in this language:
THAT the act of November 81, 1918,
prohibits only Intoxicating beer is,
therefore. the real ruling of the de-
partment, and, whatever language may
be used in arriving at this result, the
Treasury Department in effect inter
prets the meaning of the act as, l do
and treats no beer as barred which it
does not regard as intoxicating"
Although brewers throughout the
country have continued making 2.75
beer despite the Federal act, the Hoff
mann, case was taken into court las.
knn bD
for decision on whether this beer was
intoxicating and were unwilling to wait
until the Federal authorities made in
dividual prosecutions for violation of
the act, which, the brewers contended,
would cause tremendous loss in the
scrapping of their plants.
Made Sweeping Contention
Federal District Attorney Caffey
maintained in the present litigation
that the manufacture of all beer was
prohibited by the act. He also heln
that District Attorney could not be
enjoined from enforcing the criminal
law.
Judge Hands decision is significant
in that it establishes the fact that on
can be enjoined from constituting and
enforcing law in way with which
the court disagrees," said Mr. Buckner
Federal authorities had instituted
no proceedings against brewers they
maintain are violating the act, pending
decision in the Hoffman case.
Judge Hands decision covered thir-
ty-nine typewriter pages. In it he
denied the governments motion for
dismissal on the ground that the Hoff-
man company had not sufficient cause
for action and that the act forbade
the manufacture of beer, whether it
Conservation Not Purpose
~ am satisfied that this suit may
be entertained against the United
States District Attorney because it
affects the rights of property and that
the complainant, if his contentious be
sound on the merits, has no adequate
remedy at law" read Judge Hands
decision
The best argument made by the
government" read another section of
the decision, "is that the act is for
conservation of grain and that in this
view Notwithstanding beer is as
wasteful as one with a higher aco-
holic content. l think this argument
while at first persuasive, is met by
the fact that the existing law of Au
gust 10, 1917, fully covered grain con-
servation measures, and that the pro
visions under cons liberation of the act
of November 21, 1918, were for the
purpose of conserving the man power
of the nation and to increase efficiency
in the production of arms, munitions
ships, food and clothing for the army
and navy
an other words, the prime object
was not to prevent unnecessary CON