tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1282140921851003304.post1169462694084776012..comments2023-10-19T08:07:01.709-04:00Comments on drinkdrank: Albany Ale: The Curious Case of Mr. DelavanCraighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14129472719929268755noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1282140921851003304.post-89453243386153662512014-02-25T08:33:19.288-05:002014-02-25T08:33:19.288-05:00Awesome! Thank you both.Awesome! Thank you both.JMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412071124651512652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1282140921851003304.post-86864091626800267832014-02-14T12:15:45.595-05:002014-02-14T12:15:45.595-05:00Good post on a very interesting piece of local bre...Good post on a very interesting piece of local brewing history. A couple of supporting additions:<br /><br />The first story that appeared in the Albany Journal was on February 9th. Prior to the story on the 12th the local brewers had defended themselves in the Albany Journal, both making their own statements and publishing the statements of others in support of their position. These were interesting arguments that defended “Albany Ale” and Albany brewers as a corporate body, but also indicated the belief that at least some of their fellows might have been engaged in problematic behavior. As Fidler and Ryckman noted in their letter: “They attack Albany Ale, and convey the impression that it is all of this “filthy” character. If “one individual” has been “filthy,” are the whole to suffer?” (Albany Evening Journal, February 11, 1835) This was perhaps fodder for the later legislative investigation into brewing practices.<br /><br />The subsequent trials were based on the story from the 12th because Delavan named himself, which gave brewers a person to focus on, both personally and legally. As they noted in a joint letter, they did not “regret that the present charge has assumed a specific and definite character, and that its author (neither anonymous or irresponsible) will now have a full opportunity of investigating before a legal tribunal the truth and justice of the allegation.” (Albany Evening Journal, February 13, 1835).<br /><br />The first trial based upon Delevan’s story was actually that of White v. Delavan which took place in May of 1837. The White in question was William White of White, Barker & Co. White had a malt house “on the hill” and so saw himself as being directly implicated by the Delavan story. <br /><br />Like Taylor, White lost; but not for the same reason. Unlike Taylor (and Fidler and Dunlop), White wasn’t named in the story. The court ruled that, because of this, the story could not be a slander on him. This verdict might actually have encouraged Taylor in continuing his suit, as he was named in the piece and the White verdict could be read as the court seeing the content of Delavan’s letter as being potentially slanderous to those named.<br /><br />One of the interesting things about the charges laid by Delavan was that he was always careful to note that he was pointing out an issue with malting, but he never corrected others (which was most others in the temperance camp) when they indicated that poisoned water was used in the actual brewing of the ale. The stories of “fithly ale,” as you know, were numerous. Delavan also never corrected the continuing stories of the use of additives such as nux vomica, arsenic, coccolus indicus and opium which seemed to have spawned off of his piece. The 1835 legislative investigation was looking for these “replacements” in brewing materials when they investigated the brewers, largely because there was an impression – drawn from the English experience – that brewers used these things. The squeaky clean results of the senate investigation never got as much play as the stories of adulteration and bad practice. Just like today, good news doesn’t sell!<br /><br />I don’t see this story as the first salvo in regards to prohibition, but it was the first major blow against beer, which had always been seen as a temperance drink in opposition to harder spirits. Still, for the 1919 hiatus to occur, prohibition folks needed to shift attention from the manufacture of the beverage – and from the drink itself – to the morally degrading context of its sale. The evil and de-humanizing effects of the saloon are what closed the deal – and the breweries. But, as you point out, the Delavan case, was an early and effective blow for the temperance cause.<br />Gerry Lorentznoreply@blogger.com