Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-04-13
JUDGE JACKSON'S CHARGE
To the Jury in the Oleomargarine
Case in Federal Court.
A Compromise Effected, by Which
Local Merchants Will Pay the
Tax, But Will Be Relieved from
Payment of the Additional Pen
alty-Other Proceedings of the
Court Yesterday.

Court Yesterday.
As previously stated in the Register,
the attorneys in the suit of Hubbard q
PAUL againsU the United States for re-
fund of oleomargarine taxes alleged 70
have been illegally collected, was COM
promised yesterday. The nineteen local
dealers from whom the tax was collect
ed will have TO pay the full tax, but VIII
be relieved from payment OF the audi
tional fifty per cent imposed by the
statute. The matter came up yeSter-
day morning when the Federal Court
convened and Judge Jackson delivered
an oral charge to the jury, which is re-
garded as very important and interest
ing. He said:
Gentlemen of the Jury:-Thls is an ae-
ton brought by Hubbard X PAUL. WoolE-
sale grocers of the city OF htell!iS.
against Edward NJ Gikeson. Collector
of the United States Internal Revenue Tor
this district. to recover six hundred ana
sixty dollars from the defendant for hav-
ing wrongfully and Illegally assessor d
fine against said plaintiffs IN that amount,
for dealing in and handling oleomarsailIle
without having paid the special tax IN
posed by the statute.
The evidence in this case discloses
the fact that wilkins u Company sofa At
different periods and almost continuously
large amounts of some matter winch lHe
evidence. in my mind. establishes was
oieomargarne, The evidence further DIS
closes, and the facts in the case tend 70
show. that Stole Brothers were aware
of the nature of the article they were
selling and that they We're selling II ~
a fraudulent way TO their customers.
do not see how any other conclusion can
be reached from the evidence; and am
sorry to say that 1t further dlScloSeS II
there was not an open. direct conspiracy
between the shippers in Washington ana
the firm of Stole Brothers here that these
sales We're 10 be carried ON in this way
that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy
me that both Of these firms knew al
about il. The two letters that were
written by Stole Brothers to Wilkins ~
Company disclose the fact that Stole
Brothers knew exactly what they were
purchasing. independent Of all other evl-
dence in the case. because they stated in
those letters that wilkins x Company
must be careful about the coloring OF the
goods. ana that if they We're not careful
about it, that ii might arouse suspicion
and get both firms into trouble. Ii TINS
was a clean transaction upon the part or
these rnen-both the shipper anu the firm
of Stole Brothers here, who We're deal
ing in these goods-there was no occasion
whatever for Stolze Brothers TO have
written those letters Of admOnltIon TO
the parties at Washington The evidence
in this case shows that Wilkins & Conn
erS for creamery butter but both VIII
kins & Company and Stole Brothers
knew as a matter of fact that the sub
stance sold was oleomargar1ne, ana the
price of ten cents a pound paid by Stole
brothers to Wilkins & Company is evil
oence of the fact that it was oleomarga-
rine.
Everything in this case-the character
Of John c. Stolzes evidence upon the
stand his hesitancy, his hack Of memory,
and the fact that he had obliterated the
evidences of this fraud by destroying
those drafts. tend to satisfy the mind OF
the Court of his guilty participation II
this matter: and that both the parties in
Washington and Stolze Brothers here.
knew the nature and character of this
article that was being vended and sol4
by the parties in Washington and vended
and sold by the Stolze Brothers, haven
the shadow Of a doubt
Now, then. we reach the point at
which these other parties here in Wheel
ing. who are plaintiffs in this action.
become Interested in this matter. And
what is that point? They are wholesale
grocers and commission merchants here;
they send their orders TO the parties who
are dealing in these goods and who. the
evidence discloseS, We're large operators
in this class of provisions. and they pur-
chase them and sen them. What was
their duty in the premises? Is il possible
that firm like Hubbard & PAUL and the
other firms who have brought these ac-
lions did not have a. suspicion in regard
10 this matter? If they did rot. ought
they not to have had a suspicion, and
ought IneN not 10 nave kIfDNu whether
they We're dealing in that which was con-
traband? 1t was contraband unless the
tax imposed by the government Of the
United States was paid. Ordinary eau
ton ordinary produnce shOld have sug-
geSted to these parties the Importance and
necessity, for self-protection, Of an inNes-
tigation Of the character Of the goods
they were buying and which these par
ties were selling. All of us do that when
we buy anything. We ask about it and
we look at it.. When We 60 70 our gro
i-iG 10 n ~
butter. or anything Of the sort. what %
we do? We look al it; we examine 1t and
satisfy ourselves about IT, We do not
take our chances on 1t. but II IT. Is not
what we want. or in good order when de-
livered to us. we send it back But here
was a business concern-one OF the largest
firms in the city-shipping these goods
If the plaintiffs did not know the char
acter Of those goods. they ought to have
known It: it was their duty to know it,
Ignorance did not excuse them OF the
fact that the government required a tax
upon this character of butter. or oleoma r
aarine or whatever 1t was. Prudence
and caution should have suggested to
them that they satisfy themselves about
it. They did rot do il. There was neg
ligence and a failure to perform neces-
sary duty upon their part In dealing with
goods that the government required IL
stamp to be fixed upon before il could pc
sold
but ii is said that these plaintiffs We're
innocent and ignorant. That may be. ana
| hope they were q do not say they We're
not) but is ignorance Of the law any eX-
cuse or any protection to an individual
for a violation Of the law? Cnquestlon-
ably not. II ignorance is TO be pleaded
In defense OF violations of statutes Of this
character upon which statutes the gov
eminent relies to get its revenue in order
to discharge its liabilities where Will the
government ever succeed in obtaining
any revenue from internal revenue
sources? If YOU open the door in in
stances like this, what becomes Of the
revenue derived from special taxes
Where would revenue be derived from the
distiHers' tax and the brewers tax?
Where would revenue be derived from the
tobacco tax? These are the great ele-
nents of revenue which this country relies
upon in order to support its government.
and 1t is necessary that these laws Should
b. rigidly and strictly enforced If they
are not il would be better for the govern
u1ent To repeal them at once and look to
some other source of taxation TO raise
revenue for its support.
..What then is the legal status Of the
nIaintiffs in this case? Ii is simply this
that they neglected 70 perform their or
binary duties and to take the ordinary
care that cautious business men should
take They trusted these men when they
should have trusted themselves a little.
Ignorance is no excuse. This matter led
to an investigation upon the part Of the
government. through its various officers,
as TO these transactions. The Commits
sioner Of Internal Revenue directed an in