Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-30
HOME WINE ISSUE is PUZZLER
FOR u. S. ENFORCEMENT CHIEFS
Recent Grape Juice Sales Intensity Prob
lem of Law Intent--Courts
Differ in Rulings.
BY HAROLD B. ROGERS.


ming to flood the country with fruit
Juice, which In the due course Of ma
ture turns to wine, the Prohibition
Bureau is confronted with an increas-
ingly difficult problem Of homemade
wine, complicated by court decisions
which draw exceedingly fine lines.
The question OF home manufacture OF
Intoxicating liquors has been q dihicult
one for the Government to answer ever
since prohibition first came into exist
ence In the United States. 1t has pro-
voked an endless amount of discussion,
both in Congress when the Velstead
act was being drawn and among de-
tenders Of that ancient tradition that
"a mans home Is his castle"
While Government officials have done
their best to develop out OF the Vol
stead act itself and out Of the great
mass of court decisions q clear-cut and
well defined policy, 1t Is admitted In
certain we'll informed circles that the
whole question of home manufacture of
liquor, especially from fruit juices, Is
surrounded by a dense legal fog.
Showdown May Come.
Within the next year may come some
case to further clarity the
rights of the individual on the one
hand and the responsibility and powers
of the Government to enforce the pro-
hibition law on the other. Observers
are now watching with much interest
to see whether showdown on home
made wine will come, and how soon.
Col. Amos w. w. Woodeock, director
Of prohibition, has been misunderstood
in many quarters regarding his pro-
neuncement on home manufacture of
wine. Contrary to much popular be-
lief, Col. Woodcock never said 1t was
legal to make wine in the home. He
never said the Volstead act gave q man
the right to make intoxicating wine in
his own cellar. What he did say per-
tanned to the authority of the Federal
Government, in practical way, to
enforce the Law, under the restrictions
of the law. He admitted that section
20 Of the Volstead act allows a person
to make n-intoxicating" cider and
fruit juices exclusively for use in his
own home, but emphasized that 1t does
not permit the manufacture of "intoXi-
eating" fruit juices.
The difficulty In distinguishing be-
tween mere fruit juice and intoxicating
fruit juices, where cider and grape Juice
turn to hard cider and wine in the
home, was q difficulty which Col. Wood.
cock experienced as an attorney. He
prosecuted the famous John Philip Hill
case in Maryland. In that case, Repre-
sentative Hill dared the Government to
convict him for making wine in his
own home in Baltimore and invited
prohibition agents to see it done. His
case went to a jury, and the jury held
that the cider of 81 per cent alcohol
and the wine of II per cent alcohol
content were mountaineering in fact
Hill was acquitted when q jury brought
In a not guilty verdict. But Mr.. Hill
never tried his experiment again.
Other Problems Faced.
Further difficulties faced by the Gov
ernment In enforcing the law against
intoxicating fruit juices in the home
lie In the fact that before q mans
home may be entered, there must be
issued search warrant for entry. Be-
fore that search warrant may be issued,
the Government must submit evidence
of sale of the Intoxicating liquor. So,
from practical viewpoint of enforce
ment. Col. Woodcock admits that the
is difficult, to say the least.
He stands on the law, however, in in
sisting that the law does not in any of
its language permit the manufacture
OF homemade vine; 1t permits the max
ing Of n-intexicatins fruit juices.
What Congress had in mind when it
enacted section 20 of the Volstead act
on fruit juices has been interpreted by
one of the eminent authorities on the
question, Judge Edwin Y. Webb. for
11eF member of Congress, and co-author
OF the Webb omeFeAe act, one of the
earliest of prohibition measures. He
has handed down from the bench of
The United States Circuit Court of APP
peals, sitting at Richmond, Va, q deci-
sion of such liberal language that it
has proved q highly interesting decu-
nent In the present argument between
The homemade wine advocates and the
drys who are fighting homemade wine.
Judge Webb's decision, which refers
directly to his experience In Congress,
and the argument over homemade wine
At that time, reversed the decision of
Judge William E. Baker of the District
Court OF West Virginia, at Elkins, W.
Va, and freed the defendant, Greed
Isner. The defendant had been indicted
and convicted for unlawfully possessing
intoxicating liquor, to wit, 10 gallons
Of grape wine"
Made Wine From BERRIES.
THE main facts on the trial below"
;aia Judge Webb, In his decision, which
aov Is being studied more than ever by
legal authorities on the question,
showed that the defendant had q
quantity Of wild cherries and elder
berries, and made an effort TO get from
The State authorities q permit to make
vine of them. The berries were grown
On his own farm. He put them into
a barrel and strained out the berries,
having added about two gallons of water
10 one gallon of Juice. Having failed
to secure a permit, he placed the bar
rel containing the juice and water in
an outside cellar, where State police
officers found 1t. The contents Of the
barrel were not destroyed by the Of
dcer, but pint samples were taken from
said barrel. There is much disputed
testimony as to whether or not this
was At for beverage purposes;
a number of witnesses saying 1t was so
bitter that it could not be drunk, and
others saying that it tasted like wine.
The pint samples were analysed, but the
record does not show the alcoholic con-
tent.
The defendant offered to show that
the liquor was not intoxicating, but
objection to this evidence was sustained
by the trial court. There Is no evi-
dence that this connection was made for
the purpose of being sold, but for home
consumption, II it was ever ut TO be
used for such.
I'm his brief, T. A. Brown, esquire,
United States attorney, says: In order
that the question may be settled
on the construction OF the last
clause Of section 40 (of the Volstead