The San Francisco call., 1897-08-18
DOCKBRY WAS
DISCHARGED
Decision of U. s. Commits
sioner Reacock in the
Brandy Case.
He Was Acting Conscientiously
in the Performance of His
Duty.
But He Had No Right to Interfere
With Goods in Custody of Gus
toms Officers.

Lawyer Joseph Dunno spoke for six
hours yesterday before Commissioner
Heacoc& in behalf of his client James P.
Dockery, Chief Food Inspector for the
Board of Health of this City. Mr.. Dunno
accused e1-Colector John Fl. " ise of
neglecting his duty when he failed to con-
iscate and destroy the adulterated brandy.
They were illegitimate goods, not made
according to the formula deposited with
the Naval Officer. The trademarks were
changed in defiance OF law and honesty.
Mr.. Dunno argued and quoted many
authorities to prove that permit must be
obtained before goods may be removed
from bonded warehouse, and that the
law was plain that the signature of the
Naval Officer was indispensable If the
Collector had wrongfully thrown the
brandy abroad, it became an outlaw and
was, therefore, beyond the reach OF the
governmental protection,
The speaker also quoted from decision
of Justice Field of the Su preme Court of
the United States to the effect that when
a commodity became putrescent or dis
eased it ceased to be an article of COM
merce. He argued also and cited authori-
ties to show that when a State decreed
that the use of alcoholic liquors was dam
gerous 10 the public health and morals
there was no conflict with the constitu-
tional rights OF the citizen.
In answer to the contention of Deputy
United States Attorney Schlesslnger that
the adulterated brandy could not in juri-
ousy affect the health of the people OF
California because it was to be shipped
abroad, Mr.. Dunno said that the pure
food law of California prohibited the
manufacture of adulterated articles of
consumption for food or drink, and that
the Supreme Court had decided that
State had right to prohibit and to pre-
vent the manufacture and sale of adul-
terated food and drink. The State also
had right to impose penalties for a vic.
Iation of the law.
The aim of the speaker was to show that
the Collector of the Port was knowingly
and willfully violating the State law by
aiding and aDetting in the manufacture Of
adulterated liquors.
Mr.. Dunno closed his argument by saw
ing that Inspector Dockery's conduct was
honest and fair and that of a man en-
deavoring to perform what he believed to
be his duty. His motives were good, and
this fact was conceded by the Govern
ment. In every step he took he acted as
an officer of the Board of Health. and
made prominent the fact that he was such
an officer and was acting as such ana not
as an individual.
The Deputy United States Attorney re-
piled that if the courts sanctioned Dock
ery's action in the matter he would have
the right to 60 into the Custom-house to.
morrow and destroy any goods which in
his opinion may be adulterated or unfit
for food.
"Let US have the question determined
whether he has that right"
Judge Heacock in rendering his decision
said: Il agree with the prosecution upon
the general questions involvei in this
case. This has been a question of an
officer proclaiming himself as such and
admittedly acting In an honest conscien-
tious discharge Of his duty. / feel that in
such q case, person acting as a public
officer under such circumstances and in
the best OF faith. the only problem would
be whether such officer should be charged
with criminality. This manufactured
reciifed brandy was not, In my opinion,
outiawed. as 10 contended for by