Evening star., 1920-01-05
SUPREME COURT HOLDS
VALID ENFORCEMENT ACT
AS TO ALCOHOL CONTENT
Continued from First Page.)

on hand. because the plaintiff was en-
a Notwithstanding beverage expressly
authorized by the President in his
proclamation of December 8, 1917, and
prohibited by him later, only when
conservation OF all the food products
Of the country became necessary.
The facts afford no basis upon
which to rest the claim of an equity
in the plaintiffs favor. The specific
permission from the President to
manufacture 2.75 per cent beer was
not on the ground that such beer was
non-intoxicating; nor was it declara.
Notwithstanding. The permission ex-
tended to all ale and porter which.
every one knows, are intoxicating
liquors. This permission to make
2.75 beer was withdrawn December l,
1918, under proclamation of Septem-
Der 16, 1918, and no permission to
manufacture specifically 2.75 beer
was ever thereafter given by the
President. His later proclamation
March 4. 1919 merely limited the
prohibition of the use of foodstuffs
to use in the production of intoxicat-
ing liquors. Whether 2.75 beer was
intoxicating was thus left by the
President not only without de-
cision, but without even an intima-
ton.
The statement of plaintiff that the
ATS beer on hand was manufactured
under permission of the President is
wholly unfounded. 1t was not until
July /, 1919, when the war time pro-
hibition act became operative in this
respect that there was any prohibi-
tion of the sale OF any LIQUORS: SO SO
the plaintiff had on hand at the
time Of the passage of the Volstead act
was manufactured by the plaintin
long after the President had ceased
to have any authority to forbid or
to permit.
Test for Alcoholic Beverage.
"A test often used to determine
whether a beverage is to be deemed
liquor law is whether 1t contains one
half Of one per cent of alcohol by
volume A survey of the liquor laws
of the states reveals that in sixteen
states the test Is either a list OF enum-
Grated beverages. without regard to
whether they contain any alcohol or
'he presence Of any alcohol in a bev-
erage, regardless Of quantity; in eight
cen states it is the presence Of as much
as or more than one-half OF one per
cent Of alcohol; in six states, one per
cent of alcohol: in one state. the pres
ence of the alcoholic principle: and
in two states two per cent.
Thus in forty-two of the forty
eight statea-Maryfand appears in two
classes above-a malt liquor contain
ing over 2 per cent Of alcohol by
weight or volume is deemed, for the
purpose Of regulation or prohibition.
intoxicating as a matter of law. Only
one state has adopted a test as high
as 2.75 per cent by weight or 80 per
cent by volume. Only two states per-
NIT the question Of the Intoxicating
character of an enumerated liquor to
- vy, nth tot tnc
the matter has not been made clear
either by decision or legislation. The
decisions of the courts as we'll as the
action of the legislatures make 1t
upon which Congress reasonably
might conclude-that rigid classi-
flcation of beverages is an essential
of either effective regulation or eff
fective prohibition of Intoxicating
THAT tho federal government
would. in attempting to enforce a
prohibitory law. be confronted with
difficulties similar to thos encoun-
tered by the states is obvious: and
both this experience of the states and
the need OF the federal government
liquors as was done in the Volstead
act was clearly set forth in the re-
ports Of the House judiciary commit
tee.- Furthermore. recent experience
Of the military forces had shown the
necessity of fixing a definite alcoholic
test for the purpose of administering
the limited prohibitory law included
in the selective service act. And the
Attorney General. calling attention
specifically to the claim made in re-
spect to the 2.75 per cent beer. had
pointed out to Congress that definition
Of intoxicating liquor by fxed stand
ards was essential to effective en-
forcement Of the prohibition law. 1t
is therefore clear both that Congress
some Legislative definition of intoxi-
eating liquor to be essential to effec-
tive enforcement of prohibition and
also that the definition provided by
the Volstead act was not an arbi-
tyarv ona"