OLEOMARGARINE. 493 



i 



the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue. Here is the reply, the amended 

 answer, of the concern; and I am not going to read names, gentlemen, 

 because I do not want to do that. This is the plea which, they set up, 

 and which the judge finally said excused them from revealing the 

 secrets of their business so far as the Government had required, 

 although they had practically agreed when they went into business to 

 comply with the Government's requirements in that respect: 



That the allegation of the collector that the returns made by said Braun & Fitts 

 are false and fraudulent in that they did not, as said collector alleges, truthfully 

 state the name and place of residence of each person to whom goods were sold or 

 consigned, and the allegation of the collector that such charge would be sustained 

 by an examination of the books for which said collector asks of this court an order 

 for their production, would, if the order prayed for be granted, compel your respond- 

 ents to furnish, by their said books so ordered to be produced, evidence that might 

 and would tend to criminate them and each of them ; that these respondents and 

 each of them hereby personally expressly claim the privilege and right guaranteed 

 to them by the fifth' amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and object 

 to the order sought for in said petition, or any part thereof, on the ground that such 

 order if granted would compel these respondents, and each of them, to give and 

 furnish testimony that would tend to criminate them and each of them. 



Now, let me show you another case. These people have said a good 

 deal to your committee down here about the inspection of the Internal 

 Eevenue Department, and about how they are compelled to report 

 every ingredient, and that they are compelled to do this, that, and the 

 other. 



As a matter of fact, the present oleomargarine law can not compel 

 them to do anything that they do not want to do. All that they need 

 do is to hide behind their constitutional right, and claim that the evi- 

 dence called for will incriminate them. 



Here is a case which is entitled u ln re Kinney, collector of internal- 

 revenue.'' The heading is " Examination of books." 



W. F. Kinney, collector of internal revenue, district of Connecticut, issued a sum- 

 mons, under section 3173, Revised Statutes, against the Oakdale Manufacturing 

 Company, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine. The parties 

 refused to comply with the summons, and the collector petitioned the United States 

 district judge for an attachment against F. M. Mathewson, president of the com- 

 pany, directed to the United States marshal of the district, commanding him to 

 arrest said Frank M. Mathewson and bring him before the judge .to show cause why 

 he should not be adjudged in contempt and punished according to law, as provided 

 by section 3175, Revised Statutes. 



In this connection it may be said that this talk about these people 

 being compelled to make a return of the materials and products is all 

 bosh. They can not be made to do it if they do not want to. They 

 make the return if they wish, and if they do not wish they will not do 

 it, and they do not have to, according to this decision. 



The decision of the judge was adverse to the collector. He held 

 that 



The provisions of Revised Statutes, section 3173, authorizing a collector of 

 internal revenue to summon before him for examination any person charged by the 

 law with the duty of making returns of objects subject to tax, do not apply to per- 

 sons required under the oleomargarine law to make returns of materials and products. 

 Such provisions relate only to objects of taxation uponwhici the tax is collected by 

 the method of return and assessment, and not to those upon which the taxis required 

 to be paid by a stamp ; and a collector has no power under section 3173 to compel a 

 person to appear and testify to the correctness of the returns made under the oleo- 

 margarine law. (102 Fed. Rep., 468.) 



The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question. I do not want 

 to unnecessarily interrupt you; but do I understand you to say that 

 some Federal judge or court judge held this answer which you read a 

 moment ago sufficient in response to a writ of attachment for contempt? 



