Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-11-16
Hills Home Brew"


Baltimore on charge Of violating the
Volstead act by the manufacture of
cider in his own home is hailed by the
advocates OF amendment Of that
statute as a. victory for greater liber.
ality in legislation and construction
is at the same time declared by the
enforcement officials to be Of no conse-
quence, inasmuch as 1t was based
upon a finding Of the court which Is
In limo with the contentious of the ad-
ministrators OF the law. namely, that
1t is the intoxicating character of the
beverages manufactured In the home
that constitutes violation, and not the
act of manufacturing itself. The law
under which this case was brought
reads as follows:
The penalties provided in this act
against the manufacture of liquor with
out a permit shall not apply to a per-
son manufacturing Notwithstanding
cider or fruit juices exclusively for use
In his home, but such cider or fruit
juices shall not be sold or delivered ex-
cept to persons having permits to manu-
facture vinegar.
There is no ambiguity in this pro.
vision. 1t clearly turns upon the
question OF the Notwithstanding char
acter Of the homemade beverages. In
the case at Baltimore the court yield
ed that question to the jury. which re.
turned verdict OF acquittal on that
ground. The prohibition enforcement
officials hold a contrary opinion re.
garding Representative Hills prod
ucts. There lies the issue OF fact.
The law recognizes the possibility of
such an issue OF fact. and provides
for 1t by stating that Misunderstanding
drinks can he made at homo IL they
arc not sold to others than licensed
vinegar makers.
The Eolstead act In its general
terms defines an Intoxicating"
drink as one containing a certain per-
centage Of alcohol. In this particular
clause relating to homemade drinks
it merely specifies that such drinks
shall not be intoxicating, without
stating any percentage of alcohol.
The court, declaring that the burden
of proof that the beverages made at
home are intoxicating rests upon the
Government in prosecution, refuses to
consider the question of percentage and
refers to the jury the decision as to
whether the beverages In question
are intoxlca ting in character. Thus,
according to this court and this YER
diet. homemade beverages may not
be intoxicating though they contain
much higher percentage of alcohol
than that specified generally in the
act as the limit Of tolerance.
If this decision, by court and jury,
becomes the basis OF procedure in en-
forcement it follows that in the mat.
ter of drinks made at home from fruit
juices the Government must establish
the intoxicating character by actual
proof, which is obviously difficult, al
though in other cases 1t can make its
case against a violator by simply
setting forth the alcoholic content.
This sets up a duality of standard
which is likely to lead to a demand
for a modification Of the enforcement
law to effect an equality of definition
Therein lies virtually the sole impor.
lance Of the case. The fact that a
member OF the House Of Represents.
tives was the successful defendant
does not signify that amendment will
necessarily follow. It has undoubted.
ly served to give greater publicity to
the case. The advocates Of modiflca-
ton, to permit the manufacture and
sale Of light wines and beer, are quite
certain to seize upon 1t as justifica.
ton for amendment. 1t will be for
Congress to decide whether to reopen
the enforcement question in any par
ticular.
Meanwhile the decision in the Hill
case means that any person may con.
coct beverages from fruit juices in his
own home. for consumption therein.
that are not intoxicating. and that the
Government must specifically prove,
in prosecution, that they are intoxi-
eating in fact and not in chemical
percentage.