Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-11-12
5R1nG HOME BREWING
] URDER,PROH|B|T|0N BAN
Officials Rule Against
Sale OF Hops and
- Malt
DETAILS Of ORDER LACKING
Officials Construc Volstcad Act to
Mean That Ingredients Of Con-
coction Arc Without Pale OF Law,
- Except Bakers and Confcctioncrs.
INV observation-disclosures !

- WASuINGTON. Nov. I.--Homc
1rewing was brought actively under
>sle prohibition ban today when il
Mas learned tina; enforcement. Of
details had ruled aGains; the sale OF
hops and malt to others than bakers
4 and confcctioncrs. Great secrecy
,surrounded the Prohibition Bureaus
! ac;ion, but il was asccrtaincd def
itnito!y that such Instructions had
{hccn issued.
Details OF the order were lacking.
THE only admission made by prohi-
billion officials in tho absence OF
i Commissioner Kramer was that the
I Nolstead act had been construed TO
s,lrean shat the sale OF hops and malt
as component parts OF homemade
: beer wcrc without the pale of the
, Jaw and their sale mus; stop. En-
forcemcnt officials throughout the
country have been notified OF the
governments determination, bu;
they have not been supplied with the
technical language OF the decision.
2 rho construction OF the law which
resulted In the new order was made
nearly two months ago. \; that time
officials having II in charge started
"a document through the regular pro-
. cSduro from which II energies AS 4
tTrcasury decision. But IL has not
NC; been approved by Secretary
Houston. Further than TO admit cX-
: !stsncc OF the proposed Treasury
ruling, officials declined TO discuss
at
Enter General Deuinis.
Emphatic denial was made 10 the
report that the bureau had conSid :
cred or had included IN ;hc order
, other articles used in home brew
ing. Officials likewise denied shat
provision was 20 The made for the
licensing of even tho bakers and con-
'fcctioncrs. apparently the only per-
,sons who will be able 20 purchase
hops and malt
There were persistent rumors n,
both the prohibition and internal
revenue headquarters that scores of
featuring of ccrca! beverages, con-
tanning less than one-half of | per
iccnt OF alcohol, against the ire
mendous growth OF brewing as u
home industry. on this phase of tho
situation officials also refused 10
comment. II was understood. how
over, that the beverage manufactur-
crs had based complaint on a
steady but rapid decrease in their
sales, which they charged TO the
Growth Of homo brewing. They were
understood to have protested 10 the
Internal Revenue Bureau that en-
forcement agents were enforcing the
alcoholic restrictions on them while
The home brewer, with tho aid of hops
and matt, has been able TO produce "A
beverage approx!niatins o!d-fash
toned beer.
I Expect Wave of LitiE cation.
Officials anticipated that the ban
on malt and hops sales would bring
;; wave of litigation as to the govern
mcat's rights. They claimed, how
over, that their decision had been
i"oceded by q thorough study of the
80, estions involved and said they
were prepared TO meet the attack.
Sections Of the act specifically pro-
nibitins the sale OF ingredients of
beer as we'll as the formal advertis-
ing OF recipes for its manufacture
we're cited as ono Of the foundations
for the ruling. The point which they
expect to be tested in court was
VIII ether the food value of the two
a rticles banned would, in the eyes Of
n court. permit their continued sale
as such despite their use as a basis
for beverage making. The limo of
demarcation between tnc use OF tho
Two articles which cannot be sold.
and fruits. sugars and sirups. was
said to be regarded as rather in
definite. but those having the cues
lion In charge believed they were on
safe ground.