tions under the general provisions apply to manufactured articles for which specific provision is made in other sections, the punishment being cumulative, and the government at liberty to proceed under either the special or general provision.

The offense is in the removal, deposit or concealment with the intent to defraud the United States of the tax. But for the decision alluded to, the natural construction to be given to a removal under the section would seem to be, that it should be of a character similar to the concealment-one that of itself tended to show fraudulent intent, a secret removal, or a removal to an unlawful place. That case, however, decides that the intent is sufficient, though the removal be lawful.

Section 3451.-Fraudulent Documents.-Any person who simulates, or falsely or fraudulently executes or signs any bond, permit, entry, or other document required by the internal revenue laws or any regulations made in pursuance thereof, or who procures it to be done, advises, aids or connives at such execution, is liable to imprisonment from one to five years, and the property to which such instrument relates is subject to forfeiture.

An illustration of this offense is given where a person pretending that he desired to export distilled spirits, entered into bond, for the purpose apparently of removing them from Boston to Eastport, Maine, for exportation. After getting possession of the spirits, instead of exporting them he sold them for consumption near Boston. This was in the sense of the statute a fraudulent bond. It will be noted that the section not only includes bonds, but permits, entries and other documents. The permits and entries would naturally refer to such instruments as are connected with distilled spirits when removed from the warehouse. Whether the phrase "other documents," would include statements and inventories required to be made by manufacturers, is questionable.

Section 3453.-Possession with Contemplated Fraud.-This section is one under which seizures are very frequently made, and is, I believe, known to the internal revenue service as the "fraud section." It provides that when any goods, wares, merchandise, articles or objects on which taxes are imposed, are 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, or with the design to avoid the payment of the taxes, they may be seized by the collector. It subjects to forfeiture all the raw materials found in possession of such

The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. 356; ante, p. 672.

person, intending to manufacture them into articles with the purpose mentioned, all the tools, implements, instruments and personal property whatsoever, in the place or building, or within any yard or inclosure where such articles or raw materials are found.

The object of this section is to enable the government to anticipate and prevent the sale and removal, and to proceed for a forfeiture before the overt aet of fraud is committed. It is the intent of the person in whom is the possession, custody or control that is the ground of forfeiture. The possession is not material, except to identify the person whose fraudulent intent is punished. This section touches the meditated fraud before it is accomplished, and punishes it. The spirits in this case were in the distillery warehouse. The evidence tended to show fraudulent acts in furtively and surreptitiously removing spirits on which the tax was not paid, and to show removal from the receiving room in charge of the inspector, by means of a concealed trap door. It was claimed that these goods were not in the custody of the distiller, because they were in a house of which the inspector had the joint custody with the distiller, and it could not be unlocked without the use of the key in the possession of the inspector; that they were as much in the possession of the government officer as of the distiller; but the court held that the spirits were in the possession of the distiller; that the participation of the inspector in the custody of the warehouse, only gave him the means of guarding against the illegal removal of the spirits, but invested him with no legal possession of them. Whatever custody he had was merely incidental, and the result of the custody of the place where they were kept.2

To establish the fraudulent intent, as to a particular seizure, evidence may be given of false entries of spirits made and materials used through a period of seven months previous to the seizure, and of other fraudulent acts in that period. The length of period previous to the seizure, in which similar acts of fraud may be shown, is within the discretion of the court. In fraud on the customs, evidence of similar acts during a period of two years has been admitted.*

As to two classes of articles subject to forfeiture under this section, the goods manufactured and the materials intended to be manufactured, the intent of the party in reference to them is important.

1 United States v. Thirty-six Barrels of High Wines, 7 Blatch. C. C. 459. 27 Blatch. C. C. 465, 466, Woodruff, J.

3 United States v. Thirty-six Barrels of High Wines, 7 Blatch. C. C. 473. Wood v. United States. 16 Peters, 342; Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197; Buckley v. United States, 4 How. 251. In the last two cases the period was six months.

The intent must be to defraud, or evade the tax on them. But the tools, implements, and personal property are forfeited without reference to the intent; the ground of their forfeiture is guilty association. In the case last cited, a dwelling-house, lager beer saloon, brewery and appurtenances, were all inclosed with a high fence, and one engine ran the brewery and the still in the house. The claimants of articles seized for guilty association, had the burden of proof thrown on them to show entire innocence of complicity with the offenses for which the articles subject to tax were seized.

The personal property forfeited is of a kind similar to that enumerated. It is a principle of law and natural justice that property should not be forfeited except for the fault of the owner. Yet it is

a common practice, especially in the revenue laws, not only to forfeit the property actually used in the perpetration of a fraud, but that found with it, on the principle of guilty association with the unlawful goods. This principle will not be extended further than the context warrants, and where certain articles are specified as subject to forfeiture, and others named in general terms, on the principle of noscitur a sociis, the general terms are applied only to things of a character similar to those specifically named. In the case cited, the distillery seized was in the attic of a building four stories in height. The second and third stories contained barrels, chemicals, and articles adapted to the business of a distillery. On the first floor was a retail grocery, with a stock of goods such as is usually kept in such stores in that business. The information was under § 3453, against the articles used in the business of distilling, and the raw materials found there, and also against the stock of goods on the first floor. The stock of goods was held not to come within the description of personal property. By that term is meant property that would be useful in the business of distilling, of a character similar to the tools and implements used in distilling. This principle is one well established. Where it was enacted that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, should do or exercise any worldly labor, business, or work of their ordinary calling, it was held not to include drivers of stage coaches, but the description of other persons whatsoever, is limited to persons of the class specified.

Evidence of Fraud in Tobacco.-A failure to make proper

1 United States v. One Still, 5 Blatch. C. C. 403.

2 United States v. Thirty-three Barrels of Spirits, 1 Abb. C. C. 311.

3 Sandiman v. Breach, 7 Barn. & Cr. 96; Kitchen v. Shaw, 6 Ad. & Ell. 729.

returns, the annual inventories and monthly abstracts, to pay the tax, or having in possession false brands, is evidence of the fraud. The failure to enter in his books the account of the product manufactured or the account of sales when made, as in case of spirits, is evidence of a like fraudulent intent in respect to kindred matters at previous periods, and may be received; and where there has been a pretended sale, or where the goods were removed in mass from the factory to the retail department, and no account kept of sales except when thus removed in mass, these acts being breaches of the law as to the manufacture of tobacco, it may be left to the jury to say what was the intent of the manufacturer in adopting that illegal mode of doing business; and as in the case of spirits, these illegal acts for a considerable period prior to the seizure may be received as legitimate evidence of the fraudulent intent under this section of the statute.1

Packages of tobacco and cigarettes, unstamped, were found in a store, together with packages stamped, and there was evidence tending to show that the owner of the store was in the habit of keeping the stamps of emptied packages instead of destroying them. The ruling of the court was, that the unstamped packages were forfeited; and if the intention of those in charge of the store was to violate the law by not canceling the stamps, or if the unstamped packages belonged to them, and were there for the purpose of sale without payment of the tax, there would be ground for forfeiting the whole establishment. The retaining of stamps from the emptied packages was a fraud on the internal revenue law, from which the jury might infer an intention to violate the law as to the goods in his possession subject to tax. And as to brewers, if beer is sold or intended for sale without the payment of the tax, that forfeits not only the beer but the raw materials, fixtures and appliances of the brewer in whose possession the malt liquor is found. Where seven kegs of beer were found in a cellar, without stamps, in the town of W., which were claimed to have been brought from a brewery in the town of L., three or four miles distant, the jury found a verdict against the United States. 8

Under this section any evidence of a failure to comply with the requirements of the statutes regulating the occupation of the person

1 United States v. Eight hundred Caddies of Tobacco, 2 Bond, 305; United States v. Quantity of Tobacco, 5 Ben. 112; United States v. Quantity of Tobacco, 6 Ben. 68. These cases in 5 and 6 Ben. contain very full and elaborate discussions on the subject of tobacco manufacture, under the revenue laws.

2 A Quantity of Tobacco, 5 Ben. 407.

3 United States v. Barrels of Beer, 2 Bond, 395.

in whose possession the goods are found, would tend to show an intention to defraud, or evade the payment of the tax. The question is one of guilty intent, and all violations of law would tend to show such intent. On the other hand, however, an accurate and faithful compliance would tend to show innocence.

Innocent Purchaser.-When there is an offense committed which forfeits property, the title of the government vests at the time of the commission of the offense, and the taint inheres in the property, even in the possession of an innocent purchaser for value without knowledge of the offense. There is a disposition in the courts to modify the doctrine, whenever there is any circumstance in the case to take it out of the general rule. Where false brands, indicating that the taxes were paid, were placed on packages by an officer of the internal revenue, without complicity of the claimant, that would subject the officer to punishment, but would not affect an innocent purchaser.1 Where a distillery and premises were forfeited, the liens of mechanies who had furnished material and performed labor by which the property was rendered more valuable, were allowed to be paid out of the proceeds of sale, in preference to the claim of the government, on the ground of the great injustice which would otherwise result to these parties.

Section 3454-Forfeiture of Debt.—If a person liable to pay tax on goods of any kind, sells, or causes them to be sold, or allows them to be sold, with intent to avoid such tax, or in fraud of the internal revenue laws, the debt contracted therefor, or any security therefor, is forfeited and declared void, and cannot be collected in any court, unless the evidence of the debt has been transferred to an innocent holder. In such case he would protected. If the goods have been paid for, any person may sue for and recover the amount paid. One half goes to the person suing, and one half to the United States.

Section 3456-Omission to Comply with Law, or Violation of it.-This section applies to distillers, rectifiers, wholesale liquor dealers, and manufacturers of tobacco or cigars, and provides penalties if they knowingly and willfully omit, neglect or refuse to do, or cause to be done, any of the things required by law in conducting their business, or do any of the things prohibited by law. It in terms applies only where there is no specific penalty or punishment provided for the

1 United States v. Eight hundred Caddies of Tobacco, 2 Bond, 305.

? United States v. The Distillery, &c. of J. C. McCoy & Co. 21 Int. Rev. Rec. 165; 14 Wall. 45.

3 R. S. U. S. § 3454.