Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-23
WAS CASE OF RLACKmA1LINGs

MAS HI a CASh VI nAAS -
A curious case has been developed in
New York, which furnishes striking Il
lustrstion of the manner in which our laws
are enforced under Grants rule, and of the
utter disregard of law and of the rights o.
others by those having the enforcement Of
the laws ia charge, when they can put
money in their purses by such disregard.
Some months ago it was announced that
the firm of Phelps, Dodge & Co., large i'm
porters of New York, had been detected in
extensive frauds on the Government rum
ming several years back. Their books were
not seized and their established closed, as
in other like cases Of revenue frauds. But
suit was ordered to be instituted against
them, and then commenced series Of ne
gotiations to compromise the matter. 1t
was at the suggestion of Judge Noah Davis,
who was the United States District Attor
ney when the alleged frauds were discover
ed, that a compromise was agreed to by
the firm. This compromise involved the
payment to the government by Phelps,
Dodge & Co. of S2T1 900, the full amount
out of which it was claimed they had de-
frauded the government. Having paid
this fine, Phelps, Dodge & Co. felt
that something was due to the
community by way of defense of them
selves, and they published a long history of
the transaction, in which they claim to
have been guiltless of any attempt at fraud
or concealment. After Judge Davis has re-
ceived his two per cent of the fine imposed up
on, Phelps, Dodge & Co., he wrote that firm
very courteous letter stating that he had
carefully investigated their books, and was
satisfied that there had been no 'actual in
tent on their part to defraud the revenue"
and he adds:
"If had come 10 the conclusion that you
had acted with an actual design to defraud
the Government, l should have insisted
upon the forfeiture, not only of the articles
above referred to, but of the entire invoices
of which they formed part, amounting to
fully $l,O00000; but my examination,
with the explanations made to me by you,
showed clearly, as l thought, and still think,
that the idea of defrauding the government
of its lawful dues had never entered your
minds, while doing portion of your bust
ness in a manner which the courts would
declare TO be in conflict with the statutes.
| was confirmed in this by the very mesgre
amount of duties lost TO the government.
In business with you of many millions of
dollars during the period OF five years in
which the alleged irregularities occurred,
and during which you had paid 20 the gov
eminent several millions Of dollars in duties,
the whole amount lost by the alleged
fraud fell short of the sum of $1,000"
This is putting the matter in very diff
ferent light from that in which il has been
placed before the public heretofore. The
statutes relating to frauds On the revenue
are collected on two or three pages of
Brightley's Digest, and the New York
World has examined them carefully, and
finds that in every instance where an i'm
porter is punished for false invoice there
must be evidence of a guilty intent on bis
part to defraud the government. The
World also found that even where a court
and jury adjudge forfeiture, the Secretary
of the Treasury may, when satisfied that
the importer is innocent OF any
wrong intention, remit or pardon the
peralty. Therefore there cannot be any