New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-03-31
THE CLAFIIN REVENUE SUITS.
JUDGE BLATCHFoRD sUsTAINs THE DEMURRER o



JUDGE BIATCHFORD sUsTATNs THE DEMURRER VI
THE Defense.
Tn the suits of the United States against
H. b. Cafin and Others action brought to recover
the sums OF $4,000 and 100000 for alleged under
valuations OF mportatlons and for penalties In the s'
suit there fifteen and in the second seven trsnsac
tons upon each transaction there were two counts Inc
declaration demurred to on the ground that
the counts were insufficient TO maintain tho
actions. and that the defendants were not bound
10 answer them. II was claimed that counts
z, o. IL, and 10 OF the second declaration were
bad as they were based on the act or 1873,
but involved transactions occurring since the Revised
Statutes were passed. that all the counts for double
values we're bad second section OF the act OF
1923 was repealed by the fourth section OF the act OF
July 1s 1866 that the fine of not less that $50 and not
more than imposed by the act OF 1866 and by the
Revised Statutes not civil remedy, but punish
ment for crime which could only he imposed upon con-
vicion on indictment by grand jury; that, there-
FORE all the numbered counts were bad; That al
counts in both declarations were insufficient because
in none IL charged that the defendants had
apy actual intention defaud the United States, nom
intent being by the Of 1874 Of itself complete
exoneraton.
The demurrer was argued at great length by George
Bliss, United states DistrictAtoincy for tho Govern
ment and by william NJ. Evarts and Ehu Root for the
defendants Yesterday Judge Benedict rendered deci
demurrer. The following is the decision in part:
IL is quite clear that second section OF tho act OF
March 3, 1928 must be regarded as having been re-
is 10 destroy the right the plaintiffs 10 recover under
sand second section III respect OF a acts done after ,e
7, ., IL, aud - Of the second declaration
are bad 1r,oas R9F'Gsa Section OF s sSs 'e the
Revised Statutes and the provisions OF the second
section Of that act aro not contained in the Revised
maueut in their nature IL follows that Congress has de-
c red by 5000 nat the provisions OF the second
by subsequent act. 1t must held the omission
20 enact in the the second section OF the
enacted in the Revised Statutes, ia legislative
declaration by Congress hat on Dec 1873, and PRIOR
TO the OF the Revised Statutes tie second sec
zion Of the Act OF 1923 not I'm force, but had been
repealed superseded IL could have been repealed or
superseded only By The act Of 1866 and II must be held
that it not III force after the at ot leO0 was
enacted
falling within Of the second section Of the act
of 1873 and which arose prior 10 the Oh ,l
on after latter date, has been heretofore ruled by
me in favor OF such prosecution. but tl9 views pc
scented III regard Ia the eject o. Seeloh 1850 Oh the re
vised Statutes were not As fully considered as they
counts in both OF the eclaraiiOns must oe ned
void As to the numbered counts, all those III The
first suit and q and q, in tne second suit, are
founded Section OF the at 1866 while counts .,
TO- H. and H. OF the second sut are founded on section
$685. OF the Revised Statutes. These sections are sub
santaiH identical II has been decided ny inc supreme
Court that the fourth section Of the act or 1866
designed To PUNISH az Cflnlc lHht
which before had subjected an offender TO only civil
liability quasi civil Liability. Besides tbe
forfeiture the Offending merchandise the only penalty
imposed IL that the offender shall he ineu III sum not
exceeding $1,000 and NOT less than 500 or Dc Imprisoned
for any time not exceeding years both. The fine
H. mauifestly fine red by civil action
but be imposed ater II CONVICTION On ina. Tor
crime IA punishment for which the Court may in its
discretion ntct Imprisonment either with or without
the imposition Of tine. No such IMPEACHMENT can be
inflicted result OF civil action Moreover this IL
IN action debt, aud in each Of the even numbered
counts the plnIihs claim TIC sum oil S1OOo az depl
But statute does not impose PENALTY or tue OF any
sum hcrwse by the discretion of tIe Court IN nX
ing suCh after verdict tridl IL follows llat
ali the even numbered counts are bad