The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1924-12-05
CONGRESSMAN HILLS SIDE
SHOW

SHOW
The Baltimore jury's verdict of
acquittal in the case of the govern
ment VS.. Congressman Hill of Mary
land, in which Hill was charged with
manufacturing and having in his
possession cider and wine OF intoxl-
eating strength, is being niisinter-
preted by wet leaders and wet organ
izations and some wet newspapers.
The Association Against the Pro-
hibition Amendment has issued
statement that the verdict means
that ITS per cent cider is legal.
by the same token IL per cent WINE
would be legal Whether cider or
wine of this alcoholic strength in
any subsequent case that may arise
will be deemed permissible under the
Volstead law will depend entirely
4 upon the jury hearing the case
In this case the jury decided that
cider antf<wine of this voltage made
and possessed under conditions set
forth in the trial were permissible.
The jury, in short, passed upon
question of fact and not OF law.
The law was ably interpreted by
the court which Interpretation was
in full accord with existing rulings
and with the twenty-ninth section OF
the Volstead law. That section per-
mits the manufacture for home con-
I sumption Of cider and other fruit
juices containing more than one-half
of one per cent. alcoholic content
so long as such cider and fruit juices
are not intoxicating in fact. The
only point at issue, therefore, in the
Hill case was this, were the cider
and wine made and possessed by
Congressman Hill Intoxicating
Hill admitted the cider contained
2.75 per cent. alcohol and the wine
contained Il per cent. alcohol, but
insisted that neither the cider nor
the wine was intoxicating. The
Jury heard the evidence and decided
that the beverages were not intoxl-
eating.
Harvey w. Wiley, a chemist of
national reputation, expressed the
opinion that such beverages are in
toxicating. Prohibition Com m ! s.
sioner Haynes believes that bever-
ages of this alcoholic content are
intoxicating and there are probably
not many people who would insist
that beverage of IL per cent. alco-
hol is not capable of producing IN
toxication. 1t is although likely
that an identical case tried in some
other community than Baltimore
/ would rsult in different verdict.
Congressman Hill has gained
nothing for the wet cause by this
little side-show The verdict offers
no necessity for any new depart
3 mental regulations. Hill processes
to believe that by means OF his
trial and acquittal he has convinced
the public that the Volstead law I'M
iustly discriminates in favor OF the
farmer who makes cider and the
, maker of homemade wine. His
contention is that if cider and wine
of higher voltage than one-half Of
one per G, emit. is permissible, malt
liquors should also be exempted.
He talks like man who has just
discovered the twenty-ninth article
of the Volstead law. The fact is.
the Volstead law in its entirety has
been declared constitutional by the
Supreme Court and Congress will
pay no more attention to Hills
vaporings now than it did before he
went through his trial and received
verdict of acquittal at the hands OF
a Baltimore jury The cider and
fruit juice provision was inserted III
the law had been passed by the
House. 1t was urged that house
wives had no machinery to measure
alcoholic content to keep it at one
half of one per cent. standard.
Therefore it was provided that
cider and fruit Juices made and
used exclusively in the home were
not prohibited unless actually in
toxicating.
The claim set up by the Associa-
tions Against the Prohibition Amend
ment that the acquittal proves that
cider of ITS per cent. is legal, is
still more foolish than Congressman
Hills deductions. 1t would be just
as logical to insist that the manu-
facture, possession and sale of
whisky is legal because some boot
logger tried on this offense was &C
Quilted by jury. The fact is,
there is,~nothing new in this Hi
case except the publicity given it be
cause of Hills official position
American Issue.