Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/284/167/
Timestamp: 2018-09-26 15:24:24
Document Index: 175781534

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3453', '§ 3453', '§ 3453', '§ 26', '§ 3450', '§ 5']

United States v. Ryan :: 284 U.S. 167 (1931) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 284 › United States v. Ryan
2. In R.S. § 3453, which provides for forfeiture of (1) taxable articles found in the possession, custody, or control of any person for the purpose of being sold or removed by him in fraud of the internal revenue laws, (2) raw materials found in the possession of any person intending to manufacture the same into articles of a kind subject to tax, with intent to defraud the revenue, and (3) all tools, implements, instruments, and personal property whatsoever, in the
Certiorari, 283 U.S. 816, to review a judgment reversing a judgment for the Government in a forfeiture proceeding under R.S. § 3453.
Respondent, Ryan, intervened, claiming the seized property as owner, and set up that none of it was designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, or intended for use in violation of the National Prohibition Act, or subject
Section 3453 * contains three clauses. The first authorizes forfeiture of taxable "articles" found in the possession,
We are not called upon to give a strained interpretation in order to avoid a forfeiture. Statutes to prevent fraud on the revenue are construed less narrowly, even though a forfeiture results, than penal statutes and others involving forfeitures. United States v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 1, 133 U. S. 12; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, 90 U. S. 380; United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395, 77 U. S. 406; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 70 U. S. 145; Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 44 U. S. 210.
The apparent purpose was to embrace within the forfeiture at least all personal property seized in the place where taxable articles are found, but the further qualification of the taxable articles as those "intended to be used . . . in the fraudulent manufacture of such raw materials," seems meaningless unless the phrase be transposed and real as meaning "and such raw materials intended to be used . . . in the manufacture of such articles." This is the substance of the amendment of 1866, when the third clause took its present form. We think the purpose of it was to remove the ambiguity and uncertainty of the quoted phrase, and not to restrict the forfeiture to chattels associated with the illicit manufacture, to the exclusion of those associated with taxable articles possessed with the purpose to sell or remove in fraud of the revenue, which were evidently intended to be confiscable by the section as originally drawn. We cannot assume that so radical a change, if intended, would have been expressed by language so plainly capable of the opposite construction as that of the Act of 1866.
If the point were more doubtful, we should hesitate to set aside at this late date, the uniform construction given to the section with respect to this question by the lower federal courts for more than sixty years. United States v. Quantity of Rags, Fed.Cas. No. 16103 (1868); Quantity of Distilled Spirits, Fed.Cas. No. 11494 (1868); compare United States v. Thirty-Three Barrels of Spirits, Fed.Cas. No. 16470 (1868); United States v. Thirty-Six Barrels of High Wines, Fed.Cas. No. 16468 (1870); see United States v. Eighteen Barrels High Wines, Fed.Cas. No. 15033 (1871); United States v. Quantity of Tobacco, Fed.Cas.
It is said that the construction urged by the government is inadmissible because so broad as to lead to absurd results; that it would permit seizure of chattels having no relation to the taxable articles or their intended sale or removal, if anywhere in the same building or inclosure, and might include chattels possessed on the premises by others having no connection with the taxable articles or their intended sale or removal. But we do not so construe it. To do so would be to justify penalties having no relation to the offense, and the infliction of hardship on innocent persons unnecessary for the protection of the revenue. All laws are to be given a sensible construction. A literal application of a statute which would lead to absurd consequences is to be avoided whenever a reasonable application can be given which is consistent with the legislative purpose. United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 16 U. S. 631.
Notwithstanding the broad language of the section, we think it may be given a reasonable construction, and the
Respondent's objection that forfeiture under R.S. § 3453 is barred by the arrest and prosecution of the offender under the National Prohibition Act is without force. It is true that, by the express command of § 26 the National Prohibition Act, in all cases of arrest for transportation of intoxicating liquors, the transporting vehicle must be seized and proceedings for its forfeiture had under that section, and not under R.S. § 3450. Commercial Credit Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 226; Richbourg Motor Co. v. United States, 281 U. S. 528. But, by § 5 of the Willis-Campbell Act of November 23, 1921, c. 134, 42 Stat. 222, 223, all penalties for violation of the revenue laws not directly in conflict with any provision of the National Prohibition Act are continued in force. See United States v. One Ford Coupe, supra. There is no question here of use of a vehicle for transportation, and there is nothing in the National Prohibition Act necessarily