The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1877-05-22

square, and how much discount will be
allowed.
VISITORS AT TIE EXECUTIVE MANSION.
The crowd at the Executive Mansion
to-day was greater than has been noticed
since the Centennial. Nearly one.hali the
visitors we're ladies.
WHISKY FRAUDS.
Collector Weitzel, OF Cincinnati, was
in consultation with the Commissioner Of
Internal Revenue to-day. General Welt.
eel is convinced that there are no frauds
in the whisky business in Cincinnati. In
this opinion General Raum concurred.
The Commissioner also gives as his con.
viction that there are no extensive frauds
in any Of the large manufacturing dis.
tricts, and there is no such n thing as
shipments Of large quantities OF spirits
upon which tax has not been paid.
REDEMPTION OF EoNDs.
The forty.seventh call for the rcdemp-
tion OF $50 bonds Of 'G5 and conso!s oil
'G5, Issued to-day, is for SG,000,000 cou-
pom and S4 100000 registered bonds, in.
stead Of 81 100000 coupon and S3,OO6,OO0
registered, as originally intended. The
principal and accrued interests will be
paid at the Treasury in Washington, on
and after the 2lst Of August, when inter.
est will cease. The coupon bonds are
$50, No. l to 5000, both Inclusive; 500,
No. to 1000, both inclusive; $500, No.
l to 5000, both inclusive; 81 900, No. l
10 II 900, both inclusive; total coupons,
S6,000,0O0. The registered bonds are /:
$50, No. to 100, both inclusive; Sl00,
No. ! to 20, both inclusive; $500, No. TO
700, both inclusive; 81 900, No. ! to $500,
both inclusive; $4,000, No. to 1881,
both inclusive; total registered, 100000.
JACOB REHM's CASE.
The following is the decision OF the
Secretary Of the Treasury in the case OF
Jacob Rehm, of Chicago:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, !
May 81, 1877. !
The case Of Jacob Rhem is before this
Department only on an application 10
dismiss a civil suit pending before the
Circuit Court Of the United States for the
Southern District OF Illinois. 1t is based
on the allegation that this suit, though
civil in form, is for penalties imposed BY
law for an act for which he was indicted,
convicted and finally pardoned, and there.
fore that he is not liable to further prose.
cutton or punishment. This purely legal
defense is proper to be tried only by the
court before which the case is pending,
and this Department should not inter.
fere.
The second ground of this application
is based on the allegation that Rehm, on
his trial for criminal ofense, was prom
ised by the government immunity from
all civil and criminal liability or punish.
ment for the acts complained Of not only
in the indictment, but in the pending suit
as we'll. II this is established, the suit
should not be prosecuted, for the public
faith given even 10 the worst criminals is
Of more worth than any argument of pub.
lie policy demanding punishment OF the
guilty. The written statements OF the
District Attorney and OF the eminent
counsel who acted for the United States in
the criminal trial make a strong show.
ing that immunity was promised, and
that Rhem, upon his faith in it,
disclosed conspiracy Of which he was
a conspicuous member, and fulfilled his
part OF the agreement. The letter OF the
Assistant Secretary strongly supports
this view, still careful examination OF
these papers, and the attending circum.
stances, leave it doubtful in my mind
whether the immunity stipulated for ex.
tended beyond the case then pending,
which appears alone to have been the sub.
ject Of negotiation. The question OF
tine and imprisonment imposed by the
conspiracy act, and the extent and limita.
tion OF them, seem TO have been the only
immunity contemplated by either agree.
ment or pardon. II the present suit is
tor the same otlense, and for the same
liability covered by it, then the defense
OF Rehm is complete, for his pardon con.
doned his oftense. He could not be twice
put in jeopardy for the same ofFense, and
the court and Government would see to
it that its agreement for immunity ia not
evaded or disregarded. The doubt
with some is whether this suit
IS not for different cause OF action not
merely in form but in substance from
the one for which immunity was prom.
ised and granted, II the present suit
was for taxes or for breach ofthe terms
Of the bond, 1t would clearly not fall
within the terms Of immunity. This suit
is to recover the money due to the Uni.
ted States for taxes, Of which the United
States has been improperly deprived, by
an act Of Rhem and his associates. Isnot
such liability clearly distinguishable
from criminal charge Of conspiracy? :?
The suit is founded on Section 1896 OF
the Revised Statutes, which creates a
liability OF double tie tax imposed on
distilled spirits, improperly removed
from the distillery warehouse, not only
as against the owner Of spirits, but also
against any person who aids or abets
such removal. II this suit was against
the owner Of spirits, who was directly
interested in evading the tax, it could not
be claimed. The immunity promised in
this case would release him from civil
liability for the payment Of the taxes
actually due and unpaid. Does
not the same rule apply 10 the person
who aids or abets in evading the tax
The intent OF the law Is plain, to impose
civil liability for taxes due and penalty
equal to the taxes against any one who
participates in the evasion Of taxes. This
is q question not for me TO decide, but for
the court. II the court regards this lia.
bility rs integral part Of the penalty i'm.
posed for the criminal act, for which
Rehm has been tried, convicted and par
doned, It will be covered BY pardon and
immunity granted. II mot, can see
J nothing In the agreement for Immunity