Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-11-13
Writ of Certiorari Asked in the
Supreme Court.
Mr.. JERE WILSON'S PETITION
Errors in the Rulings Of Lower
Courts Declared.
l n TIE Il r CITATION ASKED

Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson, in the United States
Supreme Court today, made motion for q
writ of certiorari in the cases of Joseph
Wilkins and Howard Butler against the
United States. These cases are popularity
known as the oleomargarine cases both
defendants having been convicted and SEN
fenced, and this action having been af-
f1rmed by the court of appeals In Pennsyl-
vania.
In the petition of Joseph Wilkins certain
errors in the court of appeals of the third
circuit are alleged. The petitioner alleges
i'll part:
Necessary Allegations.
That. accordingly. in order to constitute
an offense under the said provisions of the
said act the following separate and dis
tnct things are cOncurrenty essential
namely: Cd The article in respect of which
the OffenSe is alleged must be shown to be
oieomarsarine within the definition of the
said act of Congress; (2) a mark, stamp, or
brand must have been prescribed by the
commissioner of internal revenue; CD the
Secretary of the Treasury must have APP
proved the mark, stamp, or brand so pre-
scribed; a. the mark, stamp, or brand
claimed to have been removed or defaced
must have been such as provided by said
act-that Is, such as prescribed by the said
commissioner with the approval of the
said Secretary: G) the mark, stamp, or
been unlawfully removed or defaced, and
90 the Oleomargarine contained in the
package bearing the mark, stamp, or brand
must nave been taxed in conformity with
the act; and that accordingly, before any
person. as contemplated by said act, can
be brought to trial for an alleged viola
ton thereof. he is entitled to be and must
be informed by the charge against him that
each OF the foregoing six essentials exists;
and that the trial court and the said cir
cunt court of appeals erred In holding that
the aVerments of the said Indictment were
suInclent IN merely stating that each of
the marks, stamps, and brands alleged to
nave been removed by the petitioner was
then and there required and was then and
thefe under the requirements of law
branded upon the aforesaid package
insufiiciency of Indictment,
That, as appears from the said indict-
ment, the same in no part AYERS that the
commissioner OF Internal revenue. either
with or without the approval of the Score
rotary of the Treasury. prescribed any
marks, stamps. or brands, as in and by the
sixth section of the said act of Congress
contemplated and provided. without an
aNerment to which effect the petitioner ia
ADVISED that the said Indictment WAS and
Is wholly insufficient; and the petitioner ts
further advised that the trial court erred In
aqIhl' Iihs IN evidence, Notwithstanding the
absence of such aVeIment, certain regtIIa-
lions purporttng to have been 80 prescribed
ana in so admitting the said allegations had
recourse to the doctrine Of judicial notice
when as me petitioner Is advised. has ap
p1cation only to the proof of matters suf-
hciently alleged or ayerrcd and cannot HI,
resorted TO for the purpose of supplying the
omission Of matters of essential averment.
The Meaning of the Act.
ihat, as appears from the opinion of
the said circuit court of appeals In the
premises the said court assumed In It's con-
sideration of the case that the word
taxed in the last sentence of the said If
teenth section of the said act of Congress
was, in fact. the word Affixed and that
the same assumption was made throughout
by counsel for both the United States and
the petitioner on the hearing Of the said
cause in the said trial court, and In the
said circuit court Of appeals; that accord
AsIy, through lnadvertenCe, no argument
was made by counsel or consideration had
by the court Of the meaning to be given to
said section as 1t In fact was enacted and
that the petitioner Is advised and now
urges tHat the language of the said act so
as AFORESAID containing said word taxed
has another and different meaning than
that given to II by the said trial court and
the said circuit court of appeals and thar
tnlS fact presents a question upon which
the petitioner has not been heard and upon
which, as he is advised, 1t is especially i'm
Portant to his interests that the opinion of
this court should be expressed after he
shall have had an opportunity to he
heard in relation thereto and fur
Lher, that 1t is especially irnporta 1T
ana desirable that this court should de-
clare the meaning Of the said act in this
regard for the guidance of the courts of
The United States in prosecutions under the.
said act, and of the executive officers there
OF charged with the administration of the
same, for the reason that by executive
construction of the said act the officers of
the bureau Of internal revenue In apDlvIng
an opinion Of the Attorney General of the
United States have declared an actual de-
termination by said bureau of the charac-
Ter OF the article proposed to be taxed and
an actual levy of a tax thereon to be es
sential in the administration of the said
act as appears In and by the very reglla-
IONS admitted in evidence, as aforesaid
Ielng revised regulations series I, No 8,
revised June IS. 1895