Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-03-02
VERDICT NFl THE JURY
Jos. Wilkins and Howard Butler Con-
victed Of 0ledmafgarine Frauds.
THEIR TRIALO IN PHILADELPHIA
No Testimony Offered by the De.
Tense to Disprove the Charges.
A HISTORY OF THE CASE


After years of persistent and unpublished
violation of the oeomargarine laws and the
treasury regulations governing the handling
and sale Of the product, Joseph Wilkins, Of
the firm of Wilkins & Co., oeomargarine
dealers of this city, was brought to trial
In the United States district court at Phila-
delphia yesterday before Judge Butler and
convicted of violating the oleomargarine
| laws. Howard Butler an employee of the
firm of Wilkins & Co.. was placed on trial
at the same time for the same offense and
was also convicted. The case is a familiar
one to the public, owing to the persistent
attempts made by the accused to secure
immunity from prosecution by paying
money into the internal revenue bureau of
, the Treasury Department. Many times be-
fore, as the records of the internal revenue
bureau show, the firm of Wilkins & Co.
has escaped prosecution for violations of
the oleomargarine law by paying money
into the Treasury Department.
Broken Promises to Reform.
Nearly every one of these compromises
was accompanied by promise on the part
of the offenders to indulge more in the
violations they were charged with. The
course followed by the internal revenue au-
thorities in accepting these sums of money
led Wilkins & Co. to believe that they
might continue the same course without
fear of prosecution. The great profits
which the firm made by selling oleomar-
garine under the representation that it was
butter and receiving butter prices therefor
made the payments of the compromise
moneys matter of indifference. couple
of years ago the firm paid 50 900 into the
Treasury Department to escape prosecu-
ton for alleged violations of the oleomar-
gar1ne laws in Cincinnati, and later the
sum of 81. 100 was paid in return for being
allowed to escape prosecution for a4-eged
frauds committed a Wheeling, w. Va.
Caught In the Act.
The Philadelphia case against Wilkins and
Butler involved even more fragrant viola
tons of the oleomargarine laws than the
parties had yet been apprehended in. On
the morning of Sunday, December 20, 1896,
only two days after Joseph Wilkins and
his brother Walter p. Wilkins had been
acquitted in this city on a charge of fur
n1shng oleomargarine TO the District re-
form school, under a contract to provide
butter, Joseph Wilkins and Howard But
Ter were discovered by Special Agent Will
lam II. Bowen of the internal revenue
bureau, who is now chief of the special
agents; Special Agent Arthur G. Van Horn
of the same bureau and Samuel L.. Cool
a special internal revenue gauger in the
at VI sSliplIiS OIL internal revenue
stamps and the stencil brands from 12O
boxes, containing 1850 pounds of oleo-
margarine. The marks thus being removed
were required by the law and the govern
ment regulations to be- placed upon pack
ages of oleomargarlne, in order to distin-
gmsh 1t from other products. The work
was being done in the warehouse on pier
"a, Baltimore and Ohio freight depart
ment, at 224 South Delaware avenue, Phil
adelphia.
When Wilkins and Butler We're surprised
at their work they had already scraped
the stamps and stencil brands off III boxes
OF oleomargarine and were proceeding to
scrape the remaining nine boxes in the
same manner. Wilkins and Butler were
arralsned Yesterday on separate indict-
ments, which were similar in the charges
contained and which consisted of four
counts each.
Special Agent Bowers Testimony.
United States Internal Revenue Agent
Bowen was the first witness called for the
prosecution in the trial yesterday. He de-
scrlDed how he watched the accused at
work on the Sunday morning in question
ana SAID that when they were surprised in
TIER occupation Wilkins and Butler said
they We're trying to make some money to
get back what they had paid their attor-
heyS IN Washington for defending them in
previous cases against the firm of Wilkins
d Company. In connection with Mr.. Bow
ems testimony the implements used by the
uISuSeu III SCItpIUR the boxes, fragments
or the internal revenue stamps removed
fro m them and pieces of the boxes showing
the removal of the stencil brands were
placed in evidence.
Special Agent Arthur =. Van Horn of the
internal revenue office testified that he was
with Mr. Bowen on the occasion in Dues
ton, and saw Wilkins and Butler scraping
off the stamps and labels from the boxes
Samuel Cool gave similar testimony Mr.
John b. Friel. deputy collector of internal
revenue at Philadelphia, testified that he
had al the request of Special Agent Bowen
taken the oleomargarine to q cold storage
warehouse and kept it under surveillance,
and Dr. Charles a. Champion, chemist of
the internal revenue bureau, testified to
Analysing the contents of the boxes and
finding it to be cleomargarine.
No Defense offered.
The defense offered no testimony what
ever, and neither of the defendants was
permitted to go upon the stand Judge
Jere NJ. Wilson of this city appeared for
the defendants and at the morning ses-
sion criticised very strongly the second
count of the Indictment which charged
conspiracy between the defendants At
the afternoon session United States Dis
trict Attorney Beck of Philadelphia, who
conducted the prosecution, announced that
the government would withdraw the con-
spiracy indictment entirely from the Jury
and seek a conviction the remaining
three counts of each indictment.
In his address to the jury Mr.. Beck re-
ferred to the debris on the pier, caused by
reno wing the stamps, brands and shay
ings, and that. when Bowen said he had
heard sounds Of work going on within the
pier and found two men scraping away the
brands on the boxes, he surprised the de-
PENDANTS in the very act, they admitting
t. cir guilt
Mr. McManus, for the defense, in his adj
dI ess to the jury, called it IAN imaginary
picture on the wharf" and held that the
government had failed to show that there
was any particular label on any package
the morning of the d detection, or that there
ever was a label there according to law
He held likewise that there had never been
a sample taken from tina boxes showing
that 1t was oleo.
Mr.. Beck's Argument
Mr.. Wilson claimed that the government
must prove that that label was on that
certain package. He said that the evidence
was silent on what brand and what package
the marks were found or taken from.