612 OLEOMABGARINI 



Secretary of Agriculture and an appeal to the Attorney-General to 

 refuse to compromise that Wilkins and Butler were sentenced to prison 

 a few months ago for removing brands from oleomargarine packages, 

 and they had no more than gotten well settled in prison than gigantic 

 frauds of a similar nature came to light from Chicago. 



The Wilkins case gives a clear idea of the enormous frauds that are 

 being practiced in the oleomargarine traffic, which do not affect the 

 revenue, because the goods used for this fraudulent business have 

 all paid the 2-cent tax. 



Attorney-General Griggs's statement of facts and refusal to recom- 

 mend the pardon of Wilkins and Butler will give the reader a clear 

 idea of the character of fraud which is being practiced, the lamentable 

 phase of the question being the fact that this case which came to light 

 is only one of the hundreds of swindles which are being carried on in 

 a large way and of the thousands being practiced upon consumers in 

 all portions of the country. 



The Attorney General wrote to President McKinley as follows: 



The petitioners, Joseph Wilkins and Howard Butler, were convicted of fraudu- 

 lently removing labels from packages containing oleomargarine in violation of the 

 act of August 2, 1886, and were sentenced on March 17, 1898, as to Wilkins, to impris- 

 onment for six months and to pay a fine of $1,500 and costs, and, as to Butler, to 

 imprisonment for four months and to pay a tine of $500 and costs. 



The judgment of the district court was subsequently affirmed in the circuit court 

 of appeals, to which it was taken by the defendants, and an application subse- 

 quently made to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied. Thereupon, 

 in November last, the petitioners were committed to serve their sentences of impris- 

 onment. 



The grounds of the application for a pardon as to Joseph Wilkins are, that he has 

 a wife and child, and that each of the prisoners is of good reputation and standing, 

 and has never been convicted of any other crime. They request, in view of the 

 humiliation and disgrace already suffered by them, as well as of the heavy fines 

 imposed, and in view of their good reputation and standing in the community, and 

 of the fact that no revenue has been lost to the Government, that that portion of 

 the sentence providing for imprisonment be remitted. 



The records of the office of internal revenue show that Wilkins has been a persist- 

 ent violator of the oleomargarine 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 14, 1893, Wilkins filed a proposition to pay $2,100 

 and costs in compromise of all liabilities, civil and criminal, incurred in the first 

 district of Illinois for selling oleomargarine as butter, and by violating various sec- 

 tions of the law relating to wholesale dealers in oleomargarine. This offer was 

 accepted December 26, 1893. 



April 4, 1895, less than a year and a half after the last settlement, Wilkins again 

 filed an offer of compromise, agreeing to pay $2,000 in settlement of his liabilities for 

 alleged frauds under the oleomargarine law committed in connection with a firm in 

 West Virginia. This offer was also accepted. 



A year later, April 2, 1896, Wilkins was indicted with another in the District of 

 Columbia for selling unstamped oleomargarine. On June 20, 1896, he offered to pay 

 $1,000 in compromise, but this being rejected the case went to trial and the accused 

 was acquitted. There are three separate indictments against him pending now in 

 the District of Columbia for selling oleomargarine in unstamped packages. These 

 indictments were found January 4, 1897. 



The offense of which the petitioners are now convicted was committed December 

 20, 1896, two days after the verdict of acquittal in the trial in the District of Colum- 

 bia. The petitioners were discovered by a revenue agent in the act of scraping off 

 the stamps, marks, and brands from packages of oleomargarine. 



In connection with the present case, an offer to pay $8,000 and costs in compromise 

 was made, but rejected February 23, 1898, and thereupon the case went to trial with 

 the result above stated. 



It is obvious that the business in which Wilkins was engaged must have been one 

 of great profit, otherwise he could not have afforded to make the very large pay- 

 ments in compromise which he did make or offered to make. 



That he was aware of the fraudulent and dishonorable nature of the business in 

 which he was persistently engaged appears from his own statement made in a letter 

 addressed to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, October 31, 1893, from which I 

 quote the following : 



(*30) 



