Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1920-06-11
i1RI Law SOfTENED
By RULING ON CIDER
EXPERTS HOLD NEW REGULATION
VIRTUALLY NULLIFIES BAN
ON HOME PRODUCTS.
MAKES PROSECUTION HARD
BURDEN OF PROOF IS SHIFTED TC
U. S. so IF OWNER STAYS
SOBER, he HAS LITTLE
TO FEAR.
MAKES PROSECUTION HARD


Misunderstanding cider and fruit,
juices exclusively for use in the
home" which, according to ex-
perts. practically nullifies that
portion OF the national prohibi-
ton law forbidding the manu-
facture of intoxica ting drinks i'll
the home. The new ruling,
| which is addressed ito Federal
| prohibition directors, supervising
agents and others concerned
states specifically that in cases
! where such drinks are used in the
home, the phrase "nonintoxica-
ting" means Misunderstanding i'll
fact, and not necessarily less than
oue-half of l per cent of alcohol,
as provided in section |, Of title
II, of the said act.'
This is construed as taking the
burden of proof from the Shout
ders of the person featuring
auy drink in his own home, and
| forcing the government to prove
in every separate case that the
beverage in question is intoxi-
eating. In other words, it is
| pointed out, the government will
be called on in each individual
case to prove that the drink
manufactured BY any arrested
person really did intoxicate that
person.
SALE OF GOODS PERMITTED.
Under the same ruling the
sale of such elders and fruit is
permitted to the general public
so long as they contain less than
one-half Of l per cent alcohol.
but the purchasers thereof
cannot use or possess the same
: after they contain more than one
half of l per cent Of alcohol. "
This is also construed to put the
burden Of proof upon the govern
ment, and to make prohibition
gents prove in each individual
case that the cider or fruit juices
contained more than the prescrib-
ed amount of alcohol at the time
of sale.
1t is pointed out that this will
make conviction Of either party
practically impossible before d
jury, as the agent would have to
prove that the seller knew that
his beverage contained an illegal
amonnt of alcohol at the time of
the sale or that the buyer knew
that, in the course of nature, the
beverage acquired more than the
legal amount of alcohol after he
purchased it.
DANGER IN DRUNKENNESS.
According to expert opinion,
this Interpretation Of the prohi-
bltlon law lets down the bars to
the manufacture of cider from
apples, wine from grapes or even
brandy FROM fruits, always pro-
vlded that the manufacturer of
such beverage does not get drunk
on his own product, or that the
government cannot prove that
the product intoxicated the man.
ufacturer And in every instance,
it is pointed out, the government,
under the new ruling. would have
TO make a separate case before a
jury, and would have to prove in
each case that the beverage real
ly was Intoxicating
And further it is pointed
out, if the manufacturer hap
pened to drop a little corn meal
or yeast, or any other agent to
increase the alcoholic contents,
into his own brew, the govern
ment agent who might decide to
arrest him would be under the
necessity of proving that such
ingredient was added to the mix
ture.
TEXT OF THE RULING.
| The ruling, which is signed by
Mr.. kramar and approved by
William M. Williams, Commits
sloner Of Internal Revenue, is as
follows:
Section % Of title II of the
National Prohibition Act pro-
vides that the penalties imposed
in the the act against the manu-.
facturs of liquor without a per-
NIT shall not apply to a person
for manufacturing noniuclusiyely
for use in.his home. but intoxicat.
ing cider and fruit juice except
such cider and fruit juice shall
not be sold or daliuarad