The New York herald., 1865-06-09
The Whiskey Seizures at Chicago.
IMPORTANT REVENUE DECISION.


WASHINGTON, May 25, 1865 I
Your letter of May Is in relation to the seizure and
forfeiture of spirits In the hands OF parties who have
purchased in the open market, without notice of any
fraud committed and also one from Mr. Richards Reve-
Agent in relation to two hundred barrels of spirits
seized by you in the bands OF Farwel Co., have been
received.
without conroverting your position, that section forty
eight of the act of June 30 1864 applies only TO goods in
the hands of the manufacturer and purchaser Of
the opinion that the provisions OF section sixty eight
brogd enough to cover the case.
That section provides that when the owner agent or
superintendent of any still shall neglect 10 make the
required return &C. he shall forfeit all the spirits made
by for him, with certain other property described
The forfeiture is absolute of the property and in the
alternative of the property or its value and the effect of
such statutory forfeiture has been judcaly determined
by the Supreme Court OF the United States.
The forfeiture the statutory transfer Of the right TO
the goods az the time the offence is committed The
title of the United states to the goods is not consum
mated until after Judicial condemnation; but the
right 10 them relates backward to the time the offence
committed as TO avoid all intermediate sales of
them between the commission of the offence and
demnation Under this construction whenever the dis
tiller commits the offence described in section
eight he is at once divesed OF the right to the spirits
which he at that time has hand and the right thereto
rests in the government and this right may be
mated into perfect title by seizure aud condemnation
a provided in that section
The guilty party cannot defeat this right by subse-
quent sale. If he could the punishment prescribed
could never be inflicted except at the option of the
guilty party AZ the owner Is dvesied Of his right
the time Of the commission of the offence forfeit.
ure by the owner
rake tne case OF farWcl " 70 VI VT maven ht tue
time this liquor in his possession. committed the
offence described in on Gs he forfeited all right 10
the two hundred barrels and could not thereafter con-
vey any title 10 the properly by sale transfer Of
and the government, having the right TO the property
may seize 1t whcresoever they may find IT, SO far as
Farwell 4 Co are concerned they have simply pur
chased property which their vender had title and
the hardship Is greater than usual in such cases
II parties will decline to purchase or make advances
upon spirits except such in bond they will escape
all danger Of loss from this purchase Of spirits
which were In the custody of the government would bs
protected, and proper certificates from the officer In
charge OF such spsrts would be issued to the party
this way nearly all the inducements to commit frauC
| would be- taken from the distiller
The referred to- in which the Supreme Court hav,
passed upon this question, s that Of Caldwell VS. thu
| United States, s Howard, 366 and the decision ther
| seems 10 b. conclusive Very respectfully
| JOSEPH J. LEWIS, Commissioner.
GEoRGE ScHsEIDER Esq, Collector of The First Dis
| triot, Chicago, III.