The sun., 1919-02-03
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Meaning Of the Words Defined By the
Court Of Appeals.

To rBs EDITOR OF THE suS--sir: An
effort is being made in the New YORK
Legislature TO save light wines and
malt liquors from the prohibitive pro-
visions OF the recent constitutional
amendment. and 1t Is fair to assume that
this effort Is part OF a nationwide move
ment.
The theory seems to be that by legis-
lative definition OF the term "intoxicat-
ing liquors according to high enough
percentages OF alcohol. trahic in light
wi es and malt liquors may be per-
mitted.
This attempt 10 defeat the amend
ment will fail The prohibitionists we're
we'll advised In using the term "intoxl-
eating liquors"
The words Intoxicating liquors have
we'll defined meaning in the jurispru-
dence OF this State. In the case OF
Commissioners OF Tompkins county V.
Taylor. 81 n. Y. ia. decided in 1850.
the Court OF Appeals was asked TO de-
eide whether strong beer Is embraced
in the term strong or spirituous
liquors" as used in the statute OF 1851.
The Court held.
The liquors. the frame in which WAS TO
be thus regulated. were such as were
known to be capable, when drank. OF
producing, md which generally resulted
! In partial or total intoSication. Specu!a-
tons have from time to time been IN
dulsed In, founded upon the percentage
of alcohol which different kinds OF bev-
eragcs contain, as ascertained by chemical
analysis; and attempts have been made
I tn. hn hat ha nhaF
OF the liquors. the sale and use OF which
the statute was intended to regulate and
represr. 10 to be governed by such per
centaEe. But IL seems TO me that but
one safe and sensible line OF distinction
can he drawn between the different kinds
of liquor containing alcohol In order to
determine upon which OF them the statute
was intended to operate: and that Is. be-
tween those which are capable OF caus-
ing intoNication and those containing so
small a percentage OF alcohol that the
human stomach cannot contain suff1cient
OF the liquor to produce that erect.
Under this decision. which Ia still the
law OF this State and has been re-
peatedly followed in other States, the
term Intoxicating liquors" includes any
liquor Intended for use as beverage or
capable of being so used, which con-
tains such proportion OF alcohol that
It will produce intoxication when i'm
bibed in such quantities as 1t is practi-
cally possible for a man TO drink
Fourteen other States have adopted
this ruling MARKS v State, l59 Ala.
IL Foster V. State. SO Ark 25s Mason
v State. ! Ca. App. 534 Hall Y. People.
134 III. App $50: Intoxicating Liquor
Cases. rs Kan. ISL; Bowling Green ".
McMullen. 1874 Ky. 7t2; IeIntz v. La
Page. 100 Me. 542; People V. Hawley.
Mich. $40; Fuller v jackson, 81
Miss .37 State V. Wills, l5i Mo. App.
sos; Markinson V. State. . OH. CT. 323 /:
Moore " State. 90 Tenn. 54+ Decker ".
State, 80 Tex. Or. 20; state V. Moran,
46 Wash. 500. This judicial construc-
ton has never been ropudiated in any
State and may be deemed TO be the
settled law OF all the States and Of the
United States.
Any legislative attempt to fly in the
face OF this judicial definition OF 'in-
toxicat,ng liquors would not be "ap-
propriate" TO the constitutional amend
ment and consequently would he void.
Indeed without constituting appropriate"
as a restriction on the power of Con-
rfess and of the States TO legislate. the
result would hc the same, because the
words Intoxicating liquors" used in the
constitutional amendment are conclu-
s,vely presumed TO have the legal mean
ing settled in our Jurisprudence.
Whether we favor prohibition or cp-
pose II. n decent sense of abiding by
tho results OF legal and constitutional