OLEOMARGARINE. 823 



An attempt was made to pardon them. The matter was brought before 

 President McKinley, who referred it to Attorney-General Griggs. 

 The latter wrote the President as follows, showing up the character of 

 such violations, which letter appears between pages 612 and 615 in the 

 House testimony: 



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 imprison- 

 ment 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 fine 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 subsequently 

 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 imprison- 

 ment. 



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, hi 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 per- 

 sistent 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 wa.s 

 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 Columbia. 

 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 payments 

 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 ] 

 quote the following: 



"Having a thorough knowledge of the butterine business, and knowing the possi- 

 bilities of that business, if worked in certain directions and ways, I determined to 

 try it, having the desire to make large gains quick. * * * After I found that 

 some of my goods had been seized in Cincinnati, I settled up my business as quickly 

 as possible, and did not ship any more. I came to you voluntarily, and I sincerely 

 trust you will deal with me as leniently as the law will allow you, promising yoii 

 faithfully that no such thing as this will ever occur again with me, and if I am allowed 

 to make a request, I ask that I be allowed to settle without having the western houses 

 know anything of my doings, because I know it was very dishonorable in me to do 

 as I have done, and if I am allowed to go along in life without the public knowing 

 of my misdeeds, then I feel sure that I can make a new start in some way that is 

 entirely honorable. I realize full well that I could have in some way kept away 



