The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-20
MUST serve THEIR Terms
wilkins and Butler Denied PreSi-
DENTAL Ciemeney.
The Attorney General Refuses to
Recommend ~ Pardon for the Men
aud Bases His Decision Upon Nu-
meroUs Other Similar Offences Al
legged to- Have Rccn Committed.

The application for pardon OF Joseph
wilkins. formerly a local dealer in butter
and its limitations. and Howard Butler,
who was his clerk, has been denied by the
President.
! wilkins and Butler are the men con-
victed in Philadelphia. Pa, OF violating the
oleomargarine laws. the case having at
tracted attention throughout the country
for more than a year.
The men were placed under arrest in
( 1898, charged with removing labels from
/ packages containing oleomargarine. Their
! trial in the United States District Court
| OF Philadelphia resulted in conviction, and
| they were sentenced March Il. 1898, VIII
( ldns TO Imprisonment for six months and
/ to pay fine OF $500 and costs, and Butler
/ TO Imprisonment for four months and to
pay fine Of $500 and costs. The men were
committed to prison in Philadelphia last
November to serve out their respective
! terms of Imprisonment.
Prior to imprisonment every resource
! known TO the law was resorted to in behalf
/ OF wilkins and Butler TO secure retrial
or immunity from the penalty imposed by
/ the court. The matter was taken up by
( those interested in the manufacture and
| tributed freely to pay the legal expenses
of the case. Failing to secure R reopening
! of the case in court, and defeated in their
efforts to stay proceedings by habeas cor
pus, the last resort was an appeal to Ex-
ecutive clemency.
Arguments were submitted by counsel
TO Attorney General Griggs. which awak-
ened lively protest in all parts of the
country. The evidence showed fragrant
linn 1f IaK1
ing in the facts in the case to show ameli-
Grating circumstances. The acts of the
accused as shown in the court record
were not only clearly contrary to law. but
were repeated after due warning. Agri-
culturalists, dairyrnen, and vendors of
butter were especially insistent that the
sentences OF the court should stand.
The case was taken under Amusement
by the Attorney General and was
thoroughly gone over by him in order TO
reach a just decision upon which to base
Executive action. The result was that
the Attorney General recommended that
pardon be refused, the application not be-
ing supported by sufficient evidence to
warrant the interference of the President.
The Attorney Generals decision is, in
part. as follows:
The petitioners, Joseph wilkins and Howard
Butler, convicted Of irsudulently removing
labels from packages contain oleomargarine in
violation OF the act of Aus -. .. 1886 and were
sentenced on March L. $50, as to Wilkins 10 i'm.
prisonment Tor six M. rs aud to pay fine Of
ST. 500 and costs and, N to Butler to irnprisor-
Inent for four months and to pay fine Of $500
and costs.
The Judgment Of the district court was sibse.
quently affirmed IN the Circuit Court Of Appeals.
10 which il taken by the deiendsats and
an application subsequently made to The supreme
Court for wit of certiorari was denied. There
upon in November last, the petitioners were com.
mitted to serve their srniepcts Of imprisonment
The grounds of the application for par
don are stated by the Attorney General
to be, with reference TO wilkins. that he
has wife and child 1t is further claimed
that each OF the prisoners is Of good repu-
tation and that neither had ever been con-
yicted Of crime. On account of the heavy
fines imposed and the humiliation and dis |
grace already suffered by the accused. it is |
prayed that their sentences be RENTED |
The decision continues: |
The records OF the office OF internal revenue |
show that wilkins has been persistent viOlator |
OF the oieOmarcsrinc laws and that prior to the |
present prosecution he has escaped punishment |
by means Of money payments in compromise. |
The records show that on December II. 1893. |
wilkins flied proposition TO psy - 100 and eo.ts
in compromise Of all liabilities civil and erimi-
nal, incurred in The First district OF Illinois. |
for selling oleomstgafinc as butter and By ylola.
ting various sections Of the law relating TO whole
sale dealers in oleOmsTgarine. This offer was &C.
copied December &C. 1893.
April 4, 1885. less thsn a wear and a half after
the last settlement, wilkins again filed an offer
OF compromise, agreeing to psy s.. 900 in set I
Element Of his liabilities for alleged frauds under
the oleomargarnc Law committed in connection
with firm in West Virginia This offer was
also accepted
A year later, April 2. 1896. wilk,as was in
dicted with another in the District OF Columbia
for selling unstamped olcomafgzrine. On June |
20. 1896. he offered TO pay 81 90 in compromise
but this being rejected. the went to trial
and the accused acquitted. There are THREE
separate indictments against him pending now
In the District Of Columbia for selling oleOfnar.
gArinc in unstamped packages. These indict-
ments found January {. 1897.
The offence Of which the petitioners are now
convicted was committed December 60 1886 |
two days after the verdict Of accuittal in the
trial in the District of Columbia The petitioners
were discovered by revenue agent in the act
Of scrsping of the stamps, marks, and brands |
from packages Of oleomsrgarine.
II is obvious that the business in which VII.
kns was engaged must have been one Of great |
profit otherwise he could not have afforded to
make the very large payments in compromise
which he did make offered TO make. That
he was aware Of the fraudulent and dslcnorablc
nature Of the business in which he was persis-
tcntly engaged appears from his statement
made ia = letter addressed 10 the Commissioner
Of Internal Revenue October 81, 1893
In this letter wilkins admitted that ne
sold oleomargarine contrary to law. and Of
- -.,sn