Arizona republican., 1922-04-25
TUESDAY MORNING. APRIL 25, 1922
Light Wines and Beer

Two questions involved in the proposal to
amend the federal prohibition law TO legalize
the manufacture and sale of light wines and beer
Can that be done without amendment of the
Eighteenth Amendment? And if it can be done
the reasons offered for doing it good and sufficient?
City councils and legislative bodies. well as
various commercial associations have adopted
lutions in favor of such amendment. These reso-
lutions rest on the theory that light wines
are not intoxicating within the meaning of the amend
ment though they fall under the inhibition of the
volstead act which limits the alcoholic content of
beverages to one-half OF per cent.
Among the bodies which have adopted resolu-
tions in favor of the amendment the San Fran
cisco chamber of commerce and the San Francisco
Grain Trade association which addressed letter to
AIR Volstead and received the rather causc reply:
when the prohibition amendment to the con-
sttution is either repealed modified that con-
gress can legally do what you ask for. your request
may receive consideration, but you are bit unrea-
sonable to ask members of congress- who must swear
TO support the constitution to violate it by auhoriz
ing what the amendment expressly forbds. namely
the sale of intoxicating liquors. No one doubts that
beer and wine intoxicating"
The grain trade association thereupon counters
by informing Mr. volstead that he in supposng
that his justly famous act is the Eighteenth
amendment. and that his act is not amendahie.
There is quoted his edificaton an extract from
the opinion of Mr. Justice McReynods in the case
resulting in sustaining the vostead act. in which
the Justice said: "The government freely admits
that the beer in question (275 bee) is -ntoxcat-
ing we must accept that allegation as true and be-
yond controversy The act, however, sustained
because it was not violation of the constitution.
but not as an Interpretation of the Eighteenth amend
rnent.
The other question is regardless of the intoxi-
eating character light wines and beer, what rea-
sons have we for modification of the prohibition
law in their favor? If we can say that they will
contribute to the happiness and enjoyment of the
people in excess of the harm they may inflict by
reason of their mild, intoxicating properties, we
should say that their manufacture sale should
be allowed on the ground of "the greatest good to
the greatest number" it certainly is not enough
to say that they should be permitted outlet
to the grain trade the grape growing industry.
few days ago Joseph Pennen, the artist. in an in
teryiew denounced American prohibition restrict
i've of art and literature. We only say that art
which depends upon the half shot condition Of its
devotees is hardly worth sustaining.
Coming back to the nub of the affair." find
ourselves confronted by that ancient question What
is intoxicatng?" the basis of numerous queries.
among which is, when is man drunk" What
is Intoxicating is incomplete inquiry How
old is ANN" We should have to know, to answer,
how much time had elapsed since the birth of Ann
or some contenporaneous event In order TO deter
mine whether a beverage is intoxicating should
have to know who is going to drink it.
The beer known as 2.75 is not apt to be intoxi-
eating to the seasoned consumer of alcohol though
some experienced topers easily intoxicated. It is
said that cup of used to inoxicate Edgar Allen
Poe and perhaps it is to drink of that usually
harmless beverage that we "The Raven
Mr. Justice McReynolds. by the way. did not
in the extract from the opinion quoted assert as
scientific fact that 275 beer not Intoxicating
That was only an accepted legal fact determined by
preponderance of the evidence which had been ad-
duced in that case 1t was, moreover, matter that
was so loosely connected with the that probably
neither side had strenuously contested It for the real
question before the the constitutionality
of the yolstead act.