Irish and Scotch. As to the material to be used to produce Irish or Scotch whiskey, it must be such as has been always used in the Irish and Scotch form of still commonly. This, I find from the evidence I have heard is, in Irish whiskey, barley malt, as to about 75 per cent and, as to the rest of the mash, barley, wheat, oats, and rye, or any of them; and in Scotch whiskey it is wholly barley malt. There is a distinct difference in the material used to produce Irish and Scotch whiskey in the pot still, but the material used to produce spirit in the patent still is the same whether it be produced in Ireland or in Scotland. Maize has never been commonly used in pot-still distillation; indeed it was sworn to in the course of the hearing of these cases that maize is used in the pot still in only three distilleries at all, two of which certainly are owned by owners of patent stills, and I do not find that the spirit distilled from maize in these three pot stills is taken alone by the public as Irish or Scotch whiskey. I find that maize, not having been commonly used in the pot still, or Irish or Scotch method of making whiskey, can not be material from which Irish or Scotch whiskey is derived. Between the flavour and smell of Irish whiskey and Scotch whiskey there is a distinct difference. The flavour and smell of Irish whiskey is generally attributed to the rye used in its manufacture, and the flavour of Scotch whiskey-of old-fashioned character-called its "reek" is generally thought to be traceable to the system of malting over a peat fire, and where Scotch whiskey "reeks" of the peat it is said to "have a peat reek;" but in no instance, whether it has a peat reek or not, does Scotch whiskey give the same flavour as Irish whiskey, the two kinds are easily distinguishable. Again potstill whiskey made of the material used in Ireland or in Scotland, it is agreed to by all parties, is a distinct and different article from the patent still product wherever that may be made, distinct and different in its flavour and smell. This difference, I believe, arises mainly from the difference in the method of distillation, from the difference in the working of the machine, and the still used. However that may be, while Irish and Scotch whiskey are clearly distinguishable from one another, the product of the patent still made in Ireland is not to be distinguished from that made in Scotland or even in London; therefore if the spirit produced by the patent still is to be recognized as Irish or Scotch whiskey according to the place where it is made, the terms Irish and Scotch as applied to whiskey cease to have any meaning. Now as to what the fluids sold as Irish and Scotch whiskey by the defendants Wells and Davidge, respectively, were, I had the evidence of Dr. Teed, an anelyst of great experience, and of the accuracy of whose analysis Prof. James Dewar, a most eminent chemist, had no doubt whatever. Dr. Teed, drawing his conclusions from the result of his analysis of the samples, is of opinion that the spirit is the product of the distillation of some grain, he can not say of what kind, in the patent still. He arrived at his opinion because after analysing many pot-still whiskies from different distilleries and of various ages, Dr. Teed was satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that pot-still whiske contains at least 380 parts in 100,000 fluid parts of absolute alcohol, of “impurities" (scientifically so called); while patent still spirit, he found, did not contain anything like so large a proportion of such "impurities." Dr. Teed was vehemently attacked and ridiculed by the leading counsel for the defenceMr. Fletcher Moulton (now Lord Justice Moulton)—for taking such a basis on which to found his opinion, and I am surprised, now that I have heard the chemists called by the defence, that such an attack should have been made on Dr. Teed, for Prof. James Dewar could not contradict Dr. Teed, though he was unable to corroborate him in his opinion that the figures obtained by Dr. Teed in his analysis of the samples warranted Dr. Teed's conclusions from them that the samples were of patent still produce entirely; but Prof. James Dewar's evidence, taken as a whole, amounted to the admission that he understood from Dr. Teed's figures, which Prof. James Dewar accepted as accurate, that the samples giving those figures were from the patent still as to 80 or 90 per cent. Dr. Tunnicliffe, too, gave evidence and produced figures and analyses confirming to a considerable extent Dr. Teed's opinions and conclusions from his analyses. I intentionally make no reference to the evidence given by Dr. Tatlock as an expert witness. Now Prof. James Dewar and Dr. Tunnicliffe did not contradict Dr. Teed, and if Dr. Schidrowitz could have done so I have no doubt he would have been put into the witness box, as he was in court, but he was not called. In addition to what I may call the professional evidence of Prof. James Dewar and of Dr. Tunnicliffe the defence called the blenders of the spirit sold by the defendants, and the makers of 90 per cent of it; and their evidence, if I accepted it without reservation, and I do not so accept it, proves that Dr. Teed was not far wrong in his conclusions as to the origin and manufacture of the articles as to which he certified. I am not satified that Dr. Teed was at all wrong. The men who actually handled the spirit sold by the defendants before it was sold to them say that Wells's sample and Davidge's were largely 90 per cent of patent-still spirit. In each case the spirit was derived largely from maize. The rest of the spirit sold to and by Wells and Davidge besides the 90 per cent was said to be pot-still whiskey and made from barley malt. On the evidence I heard I find that what Wells and Davidge sold as Irish and Scotch whiskey, respectively, was patent still spirit made largely from maize, to which had been added a dash, not 10 per cent, of Irish or Scotch whiskey. The quantity of whiskey added to the patent still spirit was so small that I can not understand why it was added, unless it was to save the face" of those who described it as whiskey. 66 It was admitted by the defence that both the Wells and the Davidge article was a very cheap, poor "whiskey," as it was called by the defence; and it is interesting to observe by the light of the evidence that both pot still and patent still spirit greatly improves with age, that at least 90 per cent of Wells' spirit was only one month old when put into Wells' cellar in May, and so less than six months old when sold by him in September, while what Davidge sold in June, 1905, as fine old Scotch whiskey was, as to about 90 per cent of it, made in June, 1904, just one year before. 66 Now, having found that the fluids sold by the defendants are spirit produced by the patent still from a mash consisting to a large extent of maize, to which a dash of whiskey made from barley malt in a pot still had been added, I find in my judgment that Wells' sample is not Irish whiskey and Davidge's sample is not Scotch whiskey, and Irish whiskey and Scotch whiskey having been demanded by the purchaser from Wells and Davidge, respectively, I find that each of the defendants did sell an article of food which was not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. Let me now consider whether what the defendants did was to the prejudice of the purchaser. The purchaser asked for and paid for Irish whiskey and Scotch whiskey, either of which costs more to make and as an article of commerce is of far greater value than the patent still spirit with a dash of whiskey in it which was delivered to him. He asked and paid for an article worth twice as much as the article he got. I have no doubt that the medicinal value of Irish or Scotch whiskey, with their larger proportion of so-called “impurities," is greater than that of spirit from the patent still which does not contain “impurities” in nearly so large a proportion. Irish and Scotch whiskey, on the one hand, and patent still spirit with a little whiskey added, on the other hand, are two very different articles. They differ in their contents, in their flavours, and in their scents. No average man could by taste or smell mistake one for the other; and after drinking both Irish and Scotch whiskey and pure patent still spirit, as represented by "Cambus," neat as well as diluted, I am strongly inclined to agree with the witnesses who said that the effect of the pure patent still spirit on the person taking it was different from the effect of Irish or Scotch whiskey when drunk by him, and this to the disadvantage of the pure patent still spirit. I am not prepared to say that patent still spirit alone or mixed with whiskey is injurious to the drinkers. There is no accounting for tastes and the preference of one man should not dictate the choice of another; but whatever a purchaser asks for and pays for should be given to him by the seller, or at any rate the seller should afford the purchaser the means of knowing what it is he is getting for his money-certainly if he is not getting that for which he has asked and has paid. It is not unlawful to sell patent still spirit or patent still spirit mixed with whiskey; but notice should be given to the purchaser of what it is when such spirit is sold to him, and on being served with it he should not be allowed, in his ignorance, to believe that what he has is Irish or Scotch whiskey. I find the sales in these cases by the defendants were both to the prejudice of the purchaser. Having come to these conclusions, I find that both Wells and Davidge have infringed the law, and I must fix and order penalties on each of these two sum monses. The offence committed by both defendants is the same, and the same practically in degree. Therefore I think the penalty in each case must be the same. The misrepresentation with regard to Irish and Scotch whiskey has become very usual, and its adulteration by the addition to it of patent still spirit, made largely from maize, has been gradually increasing for years, and the result has been taken by the unsuspecting public to the benefit of the distillers, dealers, and retailers until the so-called “blenders" have dared to concoct and place upon the market and sell to the retailers raw new patent still spirit with a mere dash of Irish or Scotch whiskey in it as "Irish whiskey" and "Scotch whiskey." The retailer has, in fact, sold this effort of adulteration to the public under the description by which it was sold to him. It is time the fraud upon the public in the matter of the sale of whiskey was stopped, and, though doubtless these prosecutions are very costly to those who engage in them, the information obtained and published in the course of the hearing of these two summonses is most valuable, and the result of this trial seems to me to afford ample justification for the prosecutions. Great blame attaches, in my opinion, to the "blenders" who supplied Wells and Davidge with the articles they sold. I do not think much moral blame attaches to the defendants themselves, as I believe they trusted to those who sold the articles to them to supply them with that which they might fairly and honestly retail to the public as Irish and as Scotch whiskey, respectively; but at the same time, in my judgment, it was careless of the defendants to sell what they did as they did, and since they only are before me they must pay the penalty for their infringement of the law. The costs incurred by the prosecution in putting these cases before the court are of course, very heavy, and, considering the position of the defendants, I can not order them to pay more than what must be a small part of the actual costs incurred. While I regret that the prosecutors should be anything out of pocket in bringing the matter before the court and so to public notice, as the costs to be paid by the defendants must be heavy as costs upon them, I shall impose but small nominal fines. The defendants, Thomas Samuel Wells and James Davidge, will each pay a fine of 20s. and 100 pounds costs or be imprisoned in default of distress for two months in the second division. An appeal was taken from this decision to the upper court, and the lower court was sustained by a tie vote. A further appeal has been made, and is now pending, in order to obtain a decisive opinion of a higher court. GERMAN WINES. METHOD OF MANUFACTURE. The investigation of German wines, methods of manufacture, warehousing, fining, and bottling embraced the four principal wineproducing regions of the Empire, viz, the Rhine, the Moselle, the Pfalz, and the Nahe. The German vineyards, owing to climatic conditions and their far northern position, do not produce a grape very rich in sugar. Many of the natural small wines, especially on the lower Rhine and the Moselle, do not contain much in excess of 6 or 7 per cent of alcohol. In all these regions the Riesling is the principal variety of vine cultivated, and nearly the whole product is white wine. The method of manufacture is simple, and the wine is made very largely even yet by the small growers producing only a few hogsheads. There are many large wine houses, however, for the larger vineyards, which often utilize also the grapes from near-by smaller vineyards. The grapes for making white wines are uniformly prest and the exprest juice subjected to fermentation, while in the manufacture of red wines the crusht grapes are subjected to fermentation and the wine afterwards exprest. In this way the alcohol produced denotes the red coloring matter of the red grapes from which this variety of wine is made. This coloring matter is not soluble in the unfermented juice of the grape. After the first fermentation is over the wine is put into casks. Each cask on the Rhine holds about 1,200 liters and is called a stück, while on the Moselle it holds 1,000 liters and is called a fuder. Before filling, a piece of sulfur match is burned in each cask for the double purpose of sterilization and of keeping the wine properly bleached. During the first year the casks are racked three or four times to separate the wine from the sediment (lees), and at each racking sulfur is burned as at first. After the first year the rackings are less numerous. Finally, before bottling, fining matrial, usually gelatin or white of egg, is added, and when this has entirely subsided the wine is clear and bright and ready for bottling. CLASSIFICATION. Much confusion exists in Germany in regard to the classification of wines. In England practically all the Rhine wines are known as hock, and the rest of them as Moselle. The wines of the Pfalz, the Nahe, and other regions are almost unknown in the United States under these designations. It is quite a common practise also to give the name of the most famous locality to the wines of that neighborhood, as, for instance, Johannisberg, Rüdesheim, etc., to the wines not only of those particular vineyards, but also to the wines of the neighborhood. The broad claim has been made that wines of a certain type, no matter how far the vineyards may be removed, may bear the name of a distant locality. This practise, however, has been declared by the German higher court to be inadmissible. According to that decision only names of wines which no longer indicate a locality, but rather a regional quality, can be used in this general sense. The vineyard areas in Germany have not been mapped, nor have the wines been classified, as in France. The attention of the growers and merchants was called to the great importance of agreeing among themselves both as to the limits of certain definite areas and the names which classed wines should bear. It is evidently unfair to the consumer, as well as to the owner of a high-class vineyard, that other wines, even tho excellent, should bear the name of the locality famous for its wines. It is, however, hardly possible that each small town or vineyard should furnish a separate name to each wine produced therein. The desirable thing is to protect the name of the well-known vineyard and see to it that no wine not produced therein should bear its name. The other wines might either be designated by the locality or town where made, or, better, by the regional name alone, as Rhine wine, Moselle wine, Pfalzer wine, etc. It is well known that these names are used, unfortunately, without much discrimination, and the great bulk of the German wines entering the United States in bottles bear the names Rüdesheimer, Johannisberg, Liebfrauenmilch, Marcobrunner, Berncastler Doctor, Zeltinger, Hochheimer, etc. It is high time this practise should be corrected, and no person or persons can do this so effectually as the German growers and merchants themselves. It is well known that often small portions, only a few hundred square feet, of a former vineyard may be owned by a merchant who thereupon may claim that he has vineyards in such and such places, and sells wine made in his own vineyards. So, indeed, he does, but only in infinitesimal. quantities. No wine should be admitted into our ports which bears any name giving a false indication of origin, either as to country, district, or particular locality. It would be perfectly within our |