The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1920-11-17
HOME MADE
BEER BANNED
Prohibition Officers Issue Order
Against Sale of Hops and
Malt
ONLY BAKERS
MAY PURCHASE
Enforcement Officials Will Not
Discuss Details of Order Is-
sued

washington. Nov. ll--Home brew
ing was brought actively under the
prohibition ban today when il was
learnedthat enforcement officials had
ruled agains the sale Of malt and
Hops to other than bakers and con-
fect!oners. Great secrecy surrounded
the prohibition bureaus action, but it
was asCertained definitely that such in
structions had been issued.
Details OF the order were lacking.
The only admission made by prohibi-
ton officials in the absence OF Com
missioner Kramer was that the Vol
stead act had been construed TO
mean that the sale OF hops and malt
as component parts Of home made
beer were without the pale Of the
law and their sale ruust stop. En-
forcement officials throughout the
country have been notified Of thhe
governments determination but they
have not been supplied with the tech
nical language OF the decision.
The construction Of the law which
resulted In the new order was made
time, officials having It In charge
started q document through the reg
ular procedure from its emergence
as q treasury decision. But it has
not yet been approved by Secretary
Houston. Further than to admit ex.
, istence OF the proposed treasury rul-
Ing officials decline tc define IT.
Emphatic denial was made to the
report that the bureau had consid-
| cred or had included In the order
other articles used in home brewing.
pficials likewise denied that pro-
vision was to be made for the llcen-
Ing, OF even the bakers and confec-
TONERS apparently the only persons
who win be able to purchase hops
and malt.
There were persistent rumors ut
both the prohibition and internal
revenue headquarters that scores Of
complaints had come from the man
ufacturers of cereal beverage con-
! tanning less than one half OF one per
cent OF alcohol, against the tremen-
dous growth OF brewing as a home
industry. On this phase Of the situa
tion officials also refused comment
II was underGt0od, however, that the
beverage manufacturers had based q
complaint on n steady but rapid de
| crease in their sales which they
charged 70 the growth Of home brew
ing.
! Officials anticipated that tho ban
on NAL and hops sales would bring
wave Of litigation as to the govern
ment right. They claimed, how
ever, that their decision has been
preceded by n thorough study Of the
] questions Involved anu said they were
prepared 10 meet the attacks.
Sections OF the acr specifically pro-
hibited sale Of integral parts OF beer
rs we'll As the formal advertising Of
receipts for its manufacture were
! cited ns one OF the foundations for
the ruling. The point which they
! expect TO be tested in court was
whether the food value of the two
articles banned would. in the eyes
or a court permit Their continued
sale as such despite their use as a
basis for beverage making The line
OF demarcation between the use of
he two articles which can not be
sold and traits, sugars and syrlps
was said TO be regarded as rather
indefinite, but those having the uucs-
lion in charge believed they were
on safe ground