The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-22
CHICAGO WHISKEY CASES.
DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS
UEY IN THE CASE or JACOB REIN.

DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREAS
UEy IN THE CASE or JACOB IEHM.
WASHINGTON. May II, 1877.
The following tho decision OF the secretary Of the
Treasury in the case OF JACOB RehD. of Chicago
TREASURY BsrAarxssr, May Il, 1877.
The case OF Jacob Rehm b before this department
only GU an application TO dismiss civil suit pending
before the Circuit Court Of the United States for the
Southern District OF Illinois Il Is based on tho allie
CATION hat this SUIT though civil In ora Tor penal
ties imposed ~ law Tor an act for which ho was
indicted, convicted and finally pardoned, and there.
iorc that he Is not liable 10 further prosecution
punishment Tins purely legal defence is proper
10 be tricd only by the court before which the
rs pending, aud this dspar mcnt SHOULD not Interfere
The second ground Of this appca is based upon
the allegation that Rchm on his trial Tor the nal
offence was promised by the government immunity
from all civil and criminal lisbinty punishment
for the acts complained Of not ony in the indctment
but in the penuing cv,i SUIT as well.
II this allegation Is established the suit should not
be prosecuted for tho public faith gwen TO Tho
worst criminal is OF more worth than any argument or
without lear favor. The written statements or
the District Attorney and OF the cmincnt
counsel who acted for the United Ststes IN
the criminal trial make a strong showing
that such immunity was promised, and that Rehm
upon MS iaith IN u. disclosed tue conspiracy OF which
bc MAS conspicuous member and ullicd hts part of
tho agreement The letter OF Assistant secretary
French strongly supports this Wow. Stl careful
examination OF these pancrs and the attending crcum
stances leave u doubtful VI my m nd whether the I'M
munity stipulated tor extended beyond The then
pending, which appears alone 10 have been the subject
oil negotiation. The question Of inc and imprson uient
imposed by the Conspiracy act ana the extent and Inn
iiaton OF lhem seem 10 have beeu tho only i'm
contemplated by either the agreement the pardon IL
the present suit Is for tho offence aud for tho
same liability covered by the indictment, the de-
fence OF Rchm is complete, for hts pardon cond his
offence. Ho could not DO twice put In Jeopardy for
the same offence, and the Court and the govcrnmt nj
would see to IL that liz ayr 'emcnt Tor immunity is not
evaded or dsreghrded Tho doubt with me is whether
this suit rs not for different cause OF action not
merely in form but IN substance from tho Tor
which immunity was promised and granted II the
present SUIT was either tor taxes duo or for tho breach
oil the forms of a bond II would clearly not hll within
the terms OF tho immunity or pardon This SUIT Is to
recover money due to tho United States for taxes OF
which 'he unitcd states has been Improperly de-
ateS Is not such liability clearly dstln-
guishahc from criminal charge OF conspiracy
Tho suit Is founded upon section 3.206 Of the Re-
vscd statutes, which creates Liability OF doubo the
tax imposed on distilled spirits improperly removed
from distilory warehouse, not only against tho
owner Of tho spirits, also against any person who
aids or abets such removal.
II TINS SUIT against the OF the spirits who
directly interested evudng the tax, II could
not iairy DO claimed that the Immunity promised in
this case would release him from civil liability Tor the
payment OF the taxes actually due and unpaid. Does
not the same rulc apply to person who aids or
abcts IN cvading tho taxi The intent Of
tho law Is plain 10 impose civil liability Tor the taxes
due, and penalty equal TO the taxes against any
who participates 10 evasion OF the taxes This ques
which tho case must be tried II the court regards
this liability as an integral part Of the penalty imposed
convicted nnd pardoned, II will bc covered by the par
don aud immunity granted. II not, can see nothing
IN the agreement for immunity set out In the papers
before me- that either IN law or honor would justify
purely executive officer OF tho government in rccas
ing Rchm from this evil liability.
In coming to this conclusion have taken the state
ments OF tho terms OF the given by the
gentlemen who conducted tho criminal on behalf
OF the government as fu and complete bat u must DO
remembered that while the facts stated by them
fully admitted by tho counsel representing the
mcnt IN the civil suit yet the completeness, and
pcciay their application to the civil suit 10 stoutly
denied IN an elaborate argument and that the case,
alter full argument both SIDES, has been submitted
to Judge Drummcnd 10 decide the civil suit Under
the circumstances would not feel justified IN dis.
missing tho suit, even II II clear that civil i'm
nunity was promised tho defendant. Nor DO deem
IL my duty discuss the legal right OF the officers
OF tho government 10 grant civil immunity involving
the release or taxes as part Of an agreement IN
criminal cause 10 secure tho evidence OF party
cused. II Secretary OF tho Treasury has strict
legal power 10 do doubt Congress, In proper
Case could mako good his promise OF immunity. Tie
discretion lott by aw TO the Commissioners OF Internal
Revenue with tho approval or the Secretary OF inc
Treasury, to determine what suits to prosecute might
fairly authorize these officers to discontinue suits
when either good fat clear public policy demands
that they should not be prosecuted and the United
States Courts would NO doubt, In proper cases, give
effect promised immunity. But .thcse remedies
should b. resorted to while the tho i'm
munty, the completeness OF tho pooof and It's appli-
Some II not all OF these points. before
OF the highest jurisdiction, whore evidence best
sifed the place who're the defendant and the wit.
nosses i've where they and others be fully ex-
ahmed before Judge familiar with the law and the
facts elected in the various trials growing Of the
| whiskey conspiracy.
When the liability OF tho defendant is asccrtained by
the uagmento OF this court II Will BIO time enough Tor
immunity, either to tho officers having authority to
compromise or 10 Congress. /, therefore, feel my
duty decline nke any order request regard
to the pending sui. JOHN SHERMAN, Secretary.