The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1924-11-12
NORTH DAKOTA
NOT AFFECTED
BY BOOZE RULE
Officials Hold That Federal
Judge Soper's Ruling
Makes Little Difference
STATE PROHIBITION
Absolute on the Point lnvOl'
we'd, Says States Attorney
CT Cass County

Fargo. n. D.. Nov l2.-Federai
Judge Morris A. Sopcr'S decision that
thu Nolstead acts one half of ono
percent section does not apply I"
wine and cider made in the home for
home consumption only, will nos
permit North Dakotans to make
their own home brew because the
state law prohibits possession IN
the home or any other place OF bc"-
craCes with alcoholic content of more
than one half Of one percent.
This was the declaration OF State
Attorney n. +. Homer Of tass coun-
ty last evening. Mr.. Homer main
tanned that whatever changes TINS
ruling may nccessitatc in the en-
forcement proceedings of the federal
government department OF justice,
the prohibition is absolute under the
state statute and that the state law
would be enforced to the letter here.
State Law ia Strict
"This ruling can have no effect IN
North Dakota because the state la"
here absolutely prohibits the making
or keeping OF beverages with alec
holic content of more than one hail
of one percent" said Mr.. Horner.
Judge Soper's ruling will only APP
ply to prosecutions in the federal
courts and it would seem that as far
as the federal law is concerned. this
ruling makes it less strict than has
been the generally accepted opinion
heretofore.
However, on the whole it will
make very little difference to the cit
liens generally as most of the states
now have prohibition statutes for
bidding the keeping and use of al
coholic liquors. At the time the 18TH
amendment became operative "a
states had passed such laws and a
number have since so that now there
are only one or two states where pro-
hibition is not in effect. Enforce
ment of the state laws will therefore
accomplish the same results as pro-
ceedings under the federal law as
heretofore interpreted"
No Change Here, Says Stone
Arthur A. Stone, federal prohibi-
ton enforcement director for North
Dakota, corroborated States Attorney
Horner in the statement that the rul-
ing would not change the status OF
enforcement proceedings in THIS
state. He even went further and de-
clared that the federal enforcement
division in this state had always in
terpreted the section in question
along the same line as Judge Sopcr.
ITO US there is nothing new in
Judge Sopcr's ruling" said Mr. Stone.
1--WE have always recognized the
rights of citizens to extract the juices
from fruits for home consumption as
long as these were not intoxicating,
whether the alcoholic content was
one half of one percent or over. But
federal permit is required for eX-
tracing juices of fruits and the per-
son so doing must file notice thereof
with the collector of internal reve-
nue..
One Such Permit Here
1--WE have had one such permit IN
b
However, such person, if his fruit
juice contains more than one half OF
one percent Of alcohol becomes VIC
lator of the state law, whether or not
such juice is Intoxicating in fact. Sc
there is not any lecway against The
one half percent provision in North
Dakota
Mr.. Stone stated that Judge Sop
er's decision did not apply to home
brew but solely to fruit juices, sucf
as wine and cider. Brewing ant
distilling are entirely different pro
ccsses then the extraction Of juice'
from fruits" said MIR. Stone.
No Effect Here, Says Garberg
Peder B. Garberg, assistant Unite,
States district attorney in charge o
prosecution of prohibition law vic
lators, declared that his interpreta
ton of the Nolstead act had Away
been along the lines laid down b.
Judge Soper.
81 always understood that frui
juices not Intoxicating could be eS
tracted in the home for home con
sumption only and that this is not
violation Of the Volstead act. can
not see that Judge Soper's ruling ca
make any difference in enforcement
proceedings in this state, especial
since our state law is so explicit o
the matter" said Mr.. Garberg.