The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-27
SPIRIT or TIE PRESS.
uDfroRIAL oPIEIoNs OF THE LEADING JoURNAIs
UPoR OURRBNT TOPIcs-ooMPILKD EVERY
DAT PoR THR EVENING TELEGRAPH.
GnterpaI Revenue LAw-TsH on spiritS'

EnternaI Revenue Law-Tax on spirits'
From 0s N. 2. Times.
In an article few days since upon the
whisky tax, we spoke Of Commissioner Rollins
recent decision, that the true intent of the law
was not to forfeit spirits which were stin in
bond, and we dissented from that construction
of the law 1t will be seen by our law reports
that Judge Blatchford, in the United States
Court in this city, has decided differently from
the Commissioner on this point and that some
spirits in bond were forfeited by that Court on
Monday. We presume that the Commissioner
will accept the construction which the Courts
adopt as being the real intent of the law. Its
policy Is quite different affair.
In the same article we took occasion to say
that, in our opinion the law as it stands is
sweeping and comprehensive enough to en-
brace all the cases ia which proceedings have
been commenced. We call attention, in this
connection, to q decision made in the United
States Circuit Court in Brooklyn The
forty-fifth section Of the act Of 1866 pro-
vides that all spirits found outside OF a
bonded warehouse, not removed from 1t
according TO law, shall be forfeited, and that
the "burdeu of proof shall be on the claimant
of such spirits to show that the requirements
of law in regard to the same have been COM
before Judges Nelson and Benedict, in which
a ouantitv of spirits had been removed from
CHICAGO TO the Third Collection District, and
were found there outside of bonded ware
house and in an action to forfeit them, the
Court held that it was not enough for the
claimant to prove his permit to transport
them, but that he must go further and prove
that he had complied with all the provisions
of the law. It was, we thought, very plain
that if this was the law the Government had
in its provisions the power of preventing
fraud, if forfeiture would do it. The case to
which we now refer carries out the same prin-
ciple, but applies it in another direction, viz.
to the rectifying business. Spirits that
were seized in the hands of rectifer were
sought to be forfeited, The rectiier proved
that he had bought spirits which purported to
have paid tax, and mixing it with other recti-
fed spirits reotifed the whole. But he was
selling his goods at a price less than the cost
Of manufacture and the tax. And the Court
has held that the burden Of proof was on the
rectifer, who must show that the tax had
actually been paid on the spirits, and that in
the absence of such proof they must be con-
demned.
This decision, as will be easily seen, is oi
the utmost importance to rectifers. Every
one who reads it will ask himself if he is pre-
pared to prove that the tax has been paid
upon the spirits which he has rectifed. Il
not-and we fancy that mostEof them will find
themselves in that predicament-every one
will feel as if the clutches of the law were
upon him. We can readily imagine their con
sternatiOn and the outcries with which they
will eXclaim against the injustice of requiring
them to warrant the honesty of the men with
whom they deal. But, after all, why should
they not If they are not disposed to aid il
the frauds upon the law, why should they no
refuse to deal with any except those whose
honesty they are willing to warrant They
will say that their trade will suffer. Is moi
trade suffering now Does any one suppose
that such frauds can continue to run riot in
the community as have prevailed in the traffic
in spirits, without trade being injured vitally !
Or, do they admit that honesty has no place
in commerce, and that trade and fraud are
synonymous
This forty fifth section of the law puts into
the hands of the Government enormous
powers. When they are thoroughly employed
and are found to be useless, it will be time
enough to declare the law failure, and tc
adopt new system of collecting the tax.