The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-01-24
Ignoring The Home Brewer Much Better to Drink Liquor Made By Experts Than That Concocted in Homes By People Unskiled
 in Brewing or Distilng
in Brewing or Disti|
(Hartford Courant)

The Christian Century, which char
 acteriZes itself as a militant dry
 weekly" in an editorial appearing in the current issue advises the pro-
 hibition enforcement officers to leave
 the home brewer alone and to his own devices. He can be best dealt ance propaganda, while the law concerns itself with efforts to stop the traffic in liquor not incon- | siderable task. The drinker of liquor violtaes no statutory law, says the Christian Century. Public opinion may deal with his "offense", but the prohibition law was never designed to touch him. The object of prohibi tion is not to control the appetites of
 men, but merely to prevent them
 from having q legal opportunity to
 obtain what the appetite nray desire,
 is the way 1t is reasoned. There is
 nothing sumptuary about this, insists
 the militant dry weekly" AS long as
 the consumer can make his own, pro hibition does not invade the speher | of personal liberty.
 From all this we infer that the one great crime is to permit beer or wine | or any other alcoholic beverage be- ing made by those skilled in its man. ufacture, and then sole for a pro- | fit. If the individual concocts his own drinkables and out of the goodness of his heart invites his friends and | neighbors in, that Is no crime. or at least should not be. The situation | may be an inviting field for the exer- else of moral suasion, but 1t Is not a
 field that law should undertake to | invade.
 It is somewhat difficult to follow | this militant line of reasoning. Why Is 1t all right for the individual to make what is usually bad liquor. drink it and let his friends drink it, but all wrong for somebody skilled in | the art of fermentation or distillation | to make a pure, and when properly | used, a wholesome product, and sell | it for exactly what 1t Is? The wrong we take 1t, is to be found largely in the element of profit. It sound a | bit communistic to us. Suppose this element of profit is eliminated, what then? Would not the beer, the wine.
 or the liquor have much the same | status morally and ethically as that | manufactured in the home for per- | sonal consumption and for purposes | of hospitality? Suppose the govern | ment or the state made it and dis | pensed 1t at cost. Would the indi- vidual be any the worse for buying
 1t than he would be for making it himself? Would he not, indeed, be better off than to run the risk of his | own experimentations- oil, im- perfect lamentations, deleterious | acids and all that? We merely throw | out the suggestion as a matter of plain commons sense without trying to infringe on the religious. ethical
 and moral prerogatives of the miii- tant dry Christian Century. se' We are little disturbed as to where the wickedness of profit leaves the producers of grape concentrates whom Mrs Mabel Walker Wille-
 brandt has undertaken to lead into
 the paths of law observance right
 eousness. These concentrates are sold for profit and with the full know
 ledge that they go into the home.
 where Nature. if left to it's own de-
 vices. will convert them into very
 palatable wines of from IF to It, per