New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-04-30

I tanned in fact Ill barrels. Has this a.
t dence been contradicted IL it trueY
8 it ie, is it not entirely inconsistent with Ii
/; | Quoted honestly and according to law
). you find these alleged facts to be true. An
t no explanation of them 10 given by the d.
: tense, you will inquire whether they ~
| | consistent with the innocence of Fehrer
bach, BeAles and Todd. Can all these ma,
: be innocent and ia barrels Of spirits d,
, out of the distillery bonded warehouse viii
no account of them on the distiller's 3,
| stOrehouso keepers books and no explain
ton from either of these parties Of N.
faci? These are questions which the evi
dence presses upon your attention, and va
must try to solve them if you can consist
emily with the innocence Of the defendant
If you can not, then there is no other cour,s
than to find against the parties whom thjs
evidence duplicates.
6. The prosecution claims to have shov,
that according to the books of the collAc.
| tor of internal revenue, based in the reporf.
made for Fehrenbach's distillery, and a..
cording to its own showing, the tax ON 653s
gallons, exclusive of the Ill barrels foun6
in the bonded distillery warehouse remsins
to this day unpaid and unaccounted for'
You will inquire whether this is true, and
if it il, how that number of gallons of sDir.
it's could get out of Fahrenbach's distillerv
without the payment of tax, if the distif.
to law and all hands were doing their duty.
7. The prosecution claims to have shown
by the entries in the blue memorandum
book some of the entries in the hand Of
Fehrenbach and the rest of Reynolds. mia
clerk, found in the desk in the office of the
distillery ON the night of the seizure, and
by the dray memorandum OF Peter Clark
the bargman, fourd at the ditillery also,
| that the amount of grain actually received
at the distillery was three times as grea, d
the quantity reported in the grain book re-
| quired to be kept by the distilier, and in
| thu same book required to be kept by Tia
| stOrekeeper.
What amount of grain is reported on
| the grain books ia easy to be ascertained.
| for the books themselves are in evidence
| Are you satisfied that the blue book and draw
| receipts show the amount of grain actually
delivered at the distillery! II you are, and
the amount actually delivered is largely in
excess OF the amount recorded in the books
required by law to be kept by the distillsr
and storekeeper, what is the legitimate In
ference9 The duty of the distiiler and Of
the storekeeper in reference to the entries
in the grain books have already been ex-
planned to you. Was that duty discharged!
If the grain actually received was largely
in excess OF the grain entered upon the
books required by law to be kept, what
light does the fact throw on the manner in
which the distillery was cOnducteds
Another inquiry pertinent here will be if
the amount of grain received is correctly
shown by the blue memorandum book and
the dray receipts, could that quantity Of
grain, lees what was on hand when the dis.
tillery was seized, have been consumed ii
only three msshes per day Of eighty.seyen
bushels each had been made in the dis.il-
lery.
z. The prosecution claims to have shown
that on the night OF the seizure Of the dis.
tillery there were found in a deck IN tie
office Of the distillery, wrapped up in gel
low paper, twenty-five warehouse stamps
and twenty-five tax paid stamps of serial
and corresponding numbers. That these
numbers were from 49, to 500 inclusive.
That the warehouse stamps had some indi-
cations OF having been used, but that the
tax paid stamps were no. Cancelled and
showed II marks of ever having been used
or cancelled. That packages Of distilled
spirits of the same serial numbers, having
the same stamps, were reported by the
gauger to have been stamped out of the
bonded warehouse: that the same numbers
appearsOn the books OF o. Ii. karstendiek,
one of the defendants, a rectifer and
wholesale liquor dealer; that by his books
these packages appear to have been pu.
upon the market and sold by Commagere
4 Lambert. also wholesale dealers.
Are the facts thus ale gsd by the prose
cutlon to have been proven true9 And W.
explained, do they show guilt! And If they
90, mas there been any explanation OF them
ATTEMPTED, SO far, at ieast, ss the distille7
and officers of the revenue having any coz
nection with the distillery are concerned!
1t these alleged facts are true and uuex.
U hal Gn how oh ILL
member what are the duties of the gauger
ana the storekeeper, in drawing off distilled +
spirits from the cistern room and placing F
them IN the bonded warehouse; in stamp
ing, marking and delivering them out Of .
the bonded warehouse to the distiller, and
the record and reports required to DE made
OF these transactions by the storekeeper, 1
gauger and distlller. Could these officers
and the distiller have discharged their duty.
and recorded and reported the tact that
these stamps had been affixed to packages /
of distilled spirits and Cancelled, and The
packages delivered and sold, When the /
stamps themselves were in fact in the desk
II the dlstiller, and the tax-paid stamps uu-
Used and uncanceled!
=, y. The prosecution claims to have shown
hat small building was erected nv Feh-
after his distillery Commenced \
operations, on the bank OF the river. ahout 4
'hlrty feet distant from the distillery II
bonded warehouse; that this building was +
lsed Ior the purposes of the distillery: that II
m the night of April s. 1874, when the dis.
biery was seized, the officer who N ade The II
seizure, after having fret demanded the L
Iey OF tehrenbach, who said the man who 4
lau me Key was not there, broke into this
building on the river bank outside the dis.
lilery premises and found there ffty-two
'arrels OF distilled spirits, with no stamps
shateyer, and none Of the stamps or brands
'IescfiDed by law; that there was no entry
'natever made on the st0rekeeper.s, distii.
efs or gauger's books showing the re-
1oval OF these ffty-two barrels, and no OK.
~ OF these facts was profared TO
.T y, oncer who made the seizure.
Inc prosecution insists that the inference
irresistible that these barrels of spirits
ound in the house upon the river bank
anne from Fehrenbach's d:stillery. Have
GU any doubt about that factf # yor
ave not, and you believe that these ffty-
W. barrels were found in that bnildinr.
uncut stamps and without the brands and
,arks prescribed by law, can YOU reconcile
,ese !aots with the claim that there was no
'Isplraoy to defraud the United States! II
rn'enoao =. was running an honest distil-
Iy' ana II the revenue officers commented
TN that distillery were doing their dnty.
'u.o nity-two barrels of high wines have
,e1 manufactured ia that distillerv. bar
ie1 up and the barrels removed from the
stillery premises without warehcuse ar tax
no stamps, land without any p1ark or brand
Iuireu py law Could this thing have been
,no without the consent of the disti.ler. the
0aeAeeper and the gauger, and can there
,,.a, uT ~. as % ths purpose OF this re-
ldence touching these fifty-two barrels
conclusive OF this case as to soma at iass,
the defendants; that these facts 60 no.