THE DUTY ON HOP BEER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 12, 15 January 1892, Page 2

THE DUTY ON HOP BEER.

The recent action of the Customs Department in bringing hop beer under the operation of "The Beer Duty Act, 1880," wilj give rise to a number of complications that could hardly have been contemplated by bhe Commissioner when he issued the order.

Ib seems clear that power exists under the Act to impose excise upon hop beer. The-, interpretation clause provides that " Beer means and includes ale, porter and all other malt liquor or fermented beverages made in imitation of beer or malb liquor and brewed i» whole or in parb from any obher substance than malt." Hop beer is undoubtedly a fermented beverage, and a magistrate might hold that ib was made "in imitation of beer or malt liquor," although we apprehend that in adopting such an iriberprebabion he would be straining facts. Still, hop beer, brewed under certain conditions, does develop a considerable percentage of alcohol, and it may be deemed desirable bhab beer of this description shall be placed on all fours with ale. We are perfectly confident, however, that ib was never the inbenbion of Parliamenb, when passing " The Beer Duby Act," that thi9 law should be used for tho taxation of purely temperance drinks or to restrict their sale, yeb these results are inevitable if non-alcoholic hop beer is made subject to excise. In order to levy duty on hop beer, and compel those who brew it to take out a license, it must be brought under the operation of " The Beer Duty Act, 1880," and when that is done, the aubhorities have no power to suspend any provision of thab Act. Brewers have to comply with a number of regulations of the most rigid character. Take Clause 21 as an example: " Every person who withdraws any beer from any cask upon which the proper stamp has nob been affixed for bhe purpose of bobtling the sama, or who carries on or attempts to carry on the business of bottling in any brewery, shall bo liable to a penalty net exceeding one hundred pounds, and all chattels and utensils used in such bottling orbusinesssballbeliabloto forfeiture." This clause alone is enough bo settle the business of hop beer brewing. Ib is quite true that a semi-official announcement has been made ito the effect that theso clauses will not be put in effect with respect to hop beer ; but what guarantee can there possibly be for bhab, and what righb have bhe Government or any of its officers to determine that one provision of the law shall be obeyed and an other flagrantly broken ?

But the difficulty does not end here. The very fact of treating hop beer as beer brewed in accordance with the provisions of "The Beer Duty Act, 1880," makes its sale amenable to the provisions of the Licensing Act, and non-licensed vendors will become liable to the severe penalties ol that Act. This appears to us inevitable, and the Government cannot, if they wished, prevent the Courts of the colony from administering that Act as it exists on the Statute Book, without any exception or reservation whatever.

• Hop beer, properly brewed, is as wholesome' as aerated waters, and. no more intoxicating, and we see no reason why its freedom of sale should be restricted. No doubt there are hop beers which are quite as intoxicating aB ordinary colonial ale. These may, very properly, be treated in precisely the same way. Bub to do that; an amendment of " The Beer Duty Act, 1880 " is necessary. A Epecia.l clause should be

inserted fixing the maximum amount of alcohol to qualify the beer for sale as a temperance drink. Until that has been done, the Commissioner is unquestionably straining tbe law and placing brewers and vendors of hop beer in an anomalous and extremely unfair position by levying excise duty upon this class of beverage. He is also attempting to confer upon officers of the Customs Department powers of discrimination which are utterly foreign to law and to public policy,