Republican farmer., 1919-08-08
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.

ent Law Forbids Non- Intoxicating Beer. Washington, Aug. 4.-So many diff ferent cities are meeting the wartime ! prohibition restrictions in so many diff ferent ways that a 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 | regard to the decisions which have ! been made in various Federal Court | jurisdictions. They claim a prepon- 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 l other large wet communities as well ! as in a majority of the smaller wet centres. Here is the finding:
 Fourteen United States Judges | have dealt with this question Ten l of them have held that the statute does not forbid non-intoxicating beer. One Judge has held that the statute !, does forbid non-intoxioating 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 decision"
 '-The first decision on the subject was rendered by Judge "A. N. Hand of of New York on May IT, declare the antis. After a careful review of the legal authorities and a thorough dis cussion of the question involved Judge Hand reached the conclusion thet the wartime prohibition act was intended
 to prohibit only such liquors as are in fact Intoxicating, and actually did prohibit only such liquors.
 "In 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 2.75 per cent. Of alcohol by weight is not intoxicating.
 Thereafter the Government ap- pealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Cir 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 conclusion This was Judge Rose of Baltimore who made the first decision in a criminal case involving this ques- 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 opin-
 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.~
 l The seventh United States judge
 who reached the same conclusion in l 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. l..
 also held that the wartime prohibi-
 ton act does not forbid non-intoxi- | eating beer. The tenth similar decis- | ion was by Judge SawteIle of San Francisco.
 Five of the aforementioned judges were dealing with criminal
 cases. in which the United States gov
 ernment filed informa tons or indict-
 ments charging that the defendant had manufactured beer. In none of
 these cases did the United States al-
 lese in its indictment or information
 that the beer which was involved in
 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 in two of those other four cases the decision
 was based expressly on the question of pleading. These two cases were brought in Pittsburgh and Phfladel-
 phia. The Pittsburgh decision was by Judge Thomson, and was followed by the Philadelphia decision, handed down by Judge Dickinson. He states expressly that he is following the de- 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 that the case is really one for ad- vising both the government and the | defendants as to the meaning of the statute, and he says that he does not deem if the duty of the court. under existing circumstances. to per-