The Columbus journal., 1897-06-09

ual cases and prosecute each separ-
ately.
The Star puts 1t very pointedly
some length. in which 1t says: There
is grave doubt whether the principle
of compromise. Is applied to criminal
cases, operates to the advantage Of
the community by the discourAging of
crime. It has even been asserted by
some observers that compromises tend
to foster daring operations in defiance
of the law. especially when no ques-
ton exists as to guilt and conviction
Is within reach. In the case of the
pending o!eomargarine prosecutions
the officials of the internal revenue
bureau acknowledge that they are
now considering the a~dvisability of
accepting an offer made by the al
legged ~violaters of the law prohibit
ing the sale as butter of limitations
OF that product. who propose to pay
a heavy sum in consideration of the
dropping of the cases against them.
This method Of settling proceedings
under the law is permitted by the
statutes, and involves no impeach-
ment of personal integrity, but 1t is
a serious question whether the best
purposes of the law are furthered
by acquiescence in such suggestions.
The chief purpose of the penalties
provided by the law is not to mulct
h offenders to the enrichment of the
treasury. but to discourage further vio-
lations. The people of the district and
of these dealers in limitations of butter.
who persist in marketing their prod
ucts as the genuine article, are not
concerned in the least in the state of
the fraud fund" of the internal rev.
enue Office. into which these cOmpro-
mise payments are paid, but they are
deeply interested in the success of the
efforts to stamp out the frauds. and to
this end they hope to see the law re-
lentlessly applied and the just penal
ties incurred exacted to the letter when
convictions are obtained. An offender
who is confident of securing an acquit-
tai will not generally offer to compro-
mise and such an offer may be taken
as fairly good evidence that he fears
conviction. II he anticipates benefit
from the lack of positive proof or from
the interference of some technicality,
he will save his funds and defy the Of
ficers Of the law to prosecute him. His
offer to pay a large sum, even when
more in amount than the fine that
would be imposed in case of convic-
ton, would not serve the full pur-
poses of the law, which also calls for
a term of Imprisonment. It is this
latter mode Of punishment which is
most likely to deter an evil-doer from
a repetition of his crime. The money
fine may only be partially representa-
tive of the profits of the illegal prac-
tice at which the law aims, and a
system of fines without imprisonment
would practically amount to licensing
a fraudulent business. The imprison-
ment is dreaded by violators, and as
long as there is the least opportunity
to secure conviction which will result |
in the application of this penalty all
offers of compromise should be reject
ed. If, however, there should be
enough doubt of success in case of ac-
tive prosecution to warrant the accept
ance of a compromise offer, the fine
exacted in this way should be large
enough to put a heavy premium on
good behavior in the future"
This compromise" feature of the
revenue law is one of the
---A- -l-A--pz- = |
the oleomargarine act.