Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1930-02-20
HOME RREW AND PROHIBITION
Chinook Opinion)

Congressman Fort of New Jersey would solve
the prohibition muddle by making it clear that the fed
eral prohibition act does not prohibit home brew.
In other words he would make it clear that beer and
wine can be made at home for home use without vio-
lation of the federal acts. According to the congress
man, "home brew" for home use is entirely legal now.
The householder who has felt rather devilish when he
cooked up a batch of beer, according to this authority,
isn't really so desperate a criminal as he imagined
himself to be. 1t is strange to say it, but we rather
imagine that a home brew maker will lose some of the
thrill of making his connections if ne knows that he
is not really doing something forbidden. There is
that perverse streak in human nature that gets a thrill
occasionally in doing the forbidden thing, if it is not
really repulsive in its criminality. We have the same
feeling in our adult years at times that the normal
child experiences when he mischeviously deties paren-
tai commands.
However; the more fanatical crys will not ap-
prove of allowing the householder any such privilege
and right of course and the more fanatical vets will
not be satisfied with any compromise that might lessen
the resentment against prohibition. Back of the vets
attitude, to a large extent, is the campaign effort of
those who want the commercial traffic in liquor re-
stored to a legal basis. Back of the extreme dry's
attitude is the determination to make all use of al
coFlol as a beverage a mortal sin
But the suggestion has possibilities for serious
consideration. The personal liberty advocate is
silenced if he is given an acknowledgment of his in
dividual liberty in making and using wine and beer in
his own domain. Enforcement officers are less and less
inclined to bother the home brew maker anyway ex-
cept where he begins to distribute his products out
side of his family. 1t is the traffic in intoxicants that
they are aiming at and interference with constitution
al rights of the citizen in his home has been one of the
most troublesome phases of their efforts.
The chances are greatly against any modifi-
cation in the near future in the federal prohibition
policy. If pressure for some lessening of the restric-
lions in order to make enforcement more effective
eventually results in some notifications of the federal
policy, such proposals as the one advanced by Com
gresham Fort might receive serious consideration.
Mr.. Fort has been classed among the dry forces in
Congress, it might be added.
But we 90 not see any probability Of any pro-
posal for modification gaining adoption in the near
future. The majority for the dry side in Congress is
too strong to be over thrown without a greater gain
on the part of the anti prohibitionists that seems ev-
place of prohibition on which they can agree in the
first place. They encounter the still very militant OBJ
lection to the saloon and the commercial liquor traf-
fc, whose revival and encouragement is generally
feared if there is any modification of absolute prohi-
bition-
Even such a negative proposal as Mr.. Forts is
sure to meet the objection that it opens the door to
~pedding and selling that is hard to stop. There is gen
eral disgust with the very wide spread violation of the
law and the evils that have grown with the
rapid increase in the bootleg traffic, but the advocates
of prohibition policy hold the advantage of position
and the experiment will be continued at least for many
years in the future, from all indications