The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1875-11-01

PRINCETON, Ill.,, October Goth. 1875.
To the Editor of The Argus.
On my return home and receipt of your
letter of October 18th. inst, immediate
sioner of Internal Revenue, in behalf of |
the parties interested, as requested by |
you; and wrote as strong letter as |
could. Yesterday [ received reply to |
my letter, from which it appears that the |
Commissioner declines to suspend the sale. |
L enclose you copy Of the Commits !
sioner's letter, Very respectfully yours,
THos, j. HENDERSON,
LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER.
WASHINGTON, Oct, %, 1875.
Str:: have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 18th inst, !
in behalf of certain parties at Rock Island,
from whom cigars have been siezed in Au-
gust last, and to state that it having been
found. after about seven years of labor in
this direction, impractical BILE to induce
manufacturers of cigars to comply with
the plain requirements of the law, it has
been deemed necessary to undertake to en-
force compliance,
The law requiring the branding of the
manufacturer name could easily have
been complied with. as to wooden pack
ages. such as are under seizure. Indeed
the Honorable Attorney General has re-
Gently gone so far as to decide that the law
requires the branding even of paper and
of tin boxes fused
But as these parties deny that they have
violated any law and ask no favor by way
of compromise. i do not we'll see how there
is any ground for the intervention of this
Office, as the case now stands.
In all cases Of this nature where oyer
lures have been made, ] have directed
suspension of sales; but can hardly do so
under the present position of these parties.
Very respectfully, D. D. PRATT,
Commissioner.
Hon. THos, J. HENDERSON, NJ. c.,
Princeton, Illinois,
| MIR. Commissioner Pratt says these
parties deny that they have violated any
law" This is incorrect. They do not de-
ny that they violated the law in its techni-
cality; but they claim that they did not
violate its spirit. They practically COM
piled with it, for they carried out fully the
spirit and intent of the law, by pressing
the brand into the wood and so coloring it
with indellibie ink that it was palmer than
the burned-in brand. and equally inefac-
able. The object of the law was to secure,
upon the cigar box or package, evidence OF
the place or district where the cigars were
manufactured, the number in the package
and tie name of the manufacturer. This
was done by pressing into the wood an in,
effaceable stamp showing the name Of the
maker, the number of cigars, and the place
or district where manufactured. This was
carrying out the spirit and intent of the
law, Indeed, Mr. Pratt himself has viola
ed the law by giving PERMISSION to manu-.
facturers to afhx to or press into paper OF
tin boxes evidence of the number Of cigars
the place where made, and the makers
name. This is technically violation O
, the law, and if Mr.. Pratt had the right OF
power to ignore the technical phra
seology of the law in such cases
he certainly had in the case
of our cigar makers,-and, to be con
sistent, he should either refund to our CT
gar dealers the money arbitrarily takel
from them, or else he should seize all ci
CARS in tin and paper boxes not having tn
: burned in brand upon them.
Mr. Pratt says ''the law requiring tn,
branding of the manufacturers nam
could easily have been complied with.
| That it could have been complied with i
true-but not as easily as the brand used
The only reason for stamping the boxe
e with cold brand, covered with indellibl
, ink and pressed into the wood, was becaus
| it was easier and cheaper for the boz
maker That it was as effective as tn
: burned-in brand is not denied. That it
palmer, more legible, is admitted. Tha
Y it is as durable, is admitted. That n
fraud was committed or attempted, is ad
mitted. And yet the property of our cit
: zens was confscated. 1t was an outrag
upon honest, Woodworking business mer
and when the facts were laid before tn
administration, relief was refused In
s harsh and arbitrary manner, and impcrii
4 threats uttered towards very large an
f deserving class of citizens.
4 If there was any pretense of fraud or c
an attempt to evade the intent of the Law
. nobody would say word. But, as tn
case stands, it was an outrageous and al
/. bitrary con6scation of the property of hor
r est men on a mere technicality--an GU
+ rage which nearly everybody condemns.
!. Mr.. Pratt excuses himself for his cours
e by saying that the administration has bee
I laboring for seven years to enforce tn
: law, and now they are going at it in carr
est. 1t would appear, to most people, tn;
: there must be something wrong in a la
y that meets with such resistance. and that til
r proper course for the admir- istration wouI
o. have been to procure such change in II
law as would enable men to comply wit
q its object at the least trouble and expens
70 Such course would have aided Il
70 revenue and shown disposition to a
70 business.
20 Those who are managing the administ
alton at Washington may think that Il
y people will approve and sustain such
robbery Of our citizens-even to the takil