The New York herald., 1879-02-14
THE COURTS.
Important Decision Regarding the Con-
StructiOn of the Revenue Laws
CLAIMS OF SAILORS FOR WAGES.
A Judicial Opinion of the Framer OF the
Civil Damages Act

In October. 1875 suit instituted by the United
States government against Edward and John Burke.
importers of Bass and other English and Scotch aes;
Gomez 4 Argumbau. importers of Spanish wines and
liquors.; NJ. Lienau Co., importers of French wines
and brandies; j. Osborn Son Co.. importers of
Scotch whiskeys and London Dock gin. and McCul-
lagh 4 Co.. importers of Scotch whiskeys, under
section 33ls of the Revised Statutes to from
each penalty of 500 for failure enter the in
terna revenue books the foreign spirits imported by
them. Up to 1875 supposed that imported liquors
paid no internal revenue tax; that the law did not
apply to such importations. Since then contrary
position has been taken by the government. The
question up for trial before Judge Blatchford
and = jury the test case Of the United States
against Seymour. at the June term Of the United
States District Court. in 1876 Then Judge Blatch-
ford held that the law applied to imported well
domestic spirits. Each of the persons then sued
paid the penalty OF $780, and 1t was supposed that
the matter ut end. The firm OF
Leszynsky Troup, general importers. who also
import foreign spirits. was at the time OF this
decision In the district of Collector Weber, but in
1877 moved into Collector Blake's district. Their
first knowledge OF this decision came from the visit
of the internal revenue officers in December last
Their attention then being called to the decision
they promptly confessed judgment for and paid the
penalty Of. $780, and supposed, as they were in the
position the other importers had occupied when
tho question first came up that that would
be the end of it. After the penalty had been paid
charge. They admitted their technical liability be-
fore the Commissioner. and pleaded the judgment
claiming that they could not be twice punished for
the technical offence. This question was taken
before Judge Blatchford in the form of writ Of
habeas corpus and argued about month ago. The
decision Of Judge Blatchford, which was rendered
yesterday, is very voluminous and exhaustive
opinion, and quotes largely from the proceedings in
similar cases in other courts He holds that Con-
gress in section 1913, specified that the wholesale
dealer for failure to comply with the regulation OF
<6on nouor ptrr,af, 1tQtI tn a
of 500, and on conviction to be fined and impris-
oned. and intended to provide for cumulative penal
were intended as one punishment for the Same Of.
fence; although the penalty OF 500 might be
recovered IN sa civil action. hne and impr;on
In conclusion Judge Blatchford says:-"The
proper conclusion from these considerations is that
Congress had power to prescribe the punishment by
the penalty and the fine and the Imprisonment pre-
scrbed by section 1918 as punishment, the whole
of which may be imposed, and that the language is
such as to indicate intention that the whole shall
be imposed The language of Chief Justice Marshall,
in the of the United States wiberger. is ap
plicable to this case. Though penal laws are to be
construed strictly these not to be construed 30
strictly to defeat the obvious intention OF the
Legislature The maxim is not to be applied to
narrow the words of the statute to the exclusion of
which those words, in their ordinary accepta-
ton, in that sense in which the Legislature has
obviously used them, would comprehend The in
tenton Of the Legislature is to be collected from the
words they employ Where there is no ambiguity
in the words there Is room for construction The
case must be strong one indeed which would JUS
tify court in departing from the plain meaning of
words especially in q penal act. in search of an in
tenton that the words themselves did not suggest.
1t follows that the relaor is not by what took place
in the civil action, exempted from criminal prose-
cuton under section $685. in respect 70 the matter
covered by the complaint in such civil action. and
that he is not entitled to discharge on habeas
corpus"
The above decision renders all the importers
named liable to further proceeding against them.
The question, however, will not rest here, Mr..
Leszynsky will take the decision Of Judge Blatch.
ford to the Supreme Court of the United States and
in this will receive the support Of the entire import
ing trade. The matter on the part Of the govern
ment argued by Assistant District Attorney @.
p. L. Butler, and for the petitioner by Roger NJ.
Sherman. who will carry the case Immediately to
Washington.