Norwich bulletin., 1920-11-12
New Ruling Puts
 Ban on Home Brew
Forbids the Sale of Hops and Malt to Others Than Bak- CTS and Confectioners = New Prohibition Ruling.

Washington Nov 11.-Home brewing was brought actively under the prohibi- tion ban today when it was learned that enforcement officials had ruled against the sale of hops and malt to others than bakers and confectioners. Great secrecy surrounded the prohibition bureaus ac- tion but it was definitely ascertained that such instructions had been issued.
 Details of the order were lacking. The only admission made by prohibition offi- ciaIs ill the absence of Commissioner Kramer was that the Volstead act had been construed to mean that the sale of hops and malt as component parts ot homemade beer were without the pale of the law and their sale must stop. En- forcement officials throughout the coun- try have been notified of the govern ment's determination, but they have not been supplied with the technical lan- guage of the decision
 The construction of the law which re- suited in the new orders was made near ly two months ago. At that time officials having it in charge started a document through the regular procedure from which it emerges as a treasury decision. But it has not yet been approved by Secretary Houston. Further than to ad- init existence of the proposed treasury ruling officials declined to discuss it.
 
 port that the bureau had considered or had included in the order other articles used in home brewing. Officials likewise denied that provision was to be made for the licensing of even the bakers and confectioners, apparently the only per- sons who will be able to purchase hops and malt.
 There were persistent rumors at botl the prohibition and internal revenue headquarters that scores of complaints had come from the manufacturers of ee- real beverages, containing less than one half of one per cent of alcohol against the tremendous growth of brewing as a home industry. On this phase of the sit uation, officials also refused comment. II was understood however, that the bev- craze manufacturers complaint had been based on a steady but rapid decrease in their sales which they charged to the growth of home brewing. They were un- derstood to have protested to the inter- nal revenue bureau that enforcement | agents were enforcing the alcoholic re- strictions on them while the home brew CT with the aid of hops and malt has been able to produce beverage approxi- mating old fashioned beer.
 Officials anticipated that the ban on i malt and hops sales would bring wave | of litigation as to the government rights. They claimed, however, that de i cision had been preceded by a thorough | study of the questions involved and sait | they were prepared to meet the attack Sections Uf the act specifically prohib iting the sale of integral parts of beel l as well as the formal advertising of re cipes for Its manufacture were cited a! i one of the foundations for the ruling 1 The point which they expect to be tested l in court was whether the food vallie n 1 the two articles banned would, in tn, eyes of court, permit their continued sale as such despite their use as a basil for beverage making. The line of de l markation between the use of the tw, l articles which cannot be sold and fruits | sugars and syrups was said to be re garded as rather indefinite, but rAos l having the question in charge believe, they were on safe ground