United States v. Skilken

293 F. 916, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 419, 1923 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1264
District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided February 19, 1923·No. No. 106·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

SATER, District Judge.

Section 1 of the Act of March 3, 1897 (Comp. Stat. §§ 6070-6077), provides that, whenever any distilled spirits deposited in a warehouse of a distillery of a given daily capacity have been duly entered for bottling purposes for withdrawal upon payment of the tax or export in bond, and have been gauged and the required marks, brands, or tax-paid stamps or export stamps, as the case may be, have been affixed to the package or packages containing tlie same, the distiller or owner of such distilled spirits, on proper declaration duly made may remove such spirits to a separate portion of the warehouse exclusively set apart for the purpose, and there, under the supervision of an authorized representative of the United States in charge of the warehouse, may immediately draw off such spirits and bottle, case, and pack the same. Packages of the same kind produced at the same distillery by the same distiller, but differing in proof, may be mingled. There may be no commingling of different products, or of the same products of different: distilling seasons, nor the addition or subtraction of any substance or material, or the application of any method or process to change in any way the original condition or character of the product, except as authorized by the act. An adhesive engraved prescribed strip stamp is affixed to each bottle and passes over its mouth when it is filled from the cistern containing the spirits. The bottles are then packed in cases containing six bottles or multiples thereof. In each cage, there must not be less than two nor more than five gallons, which cases must be immediately removed from the distillery premises. There must be affixed to each case, before removal from the warehouse, a stamp denoting the number of gallons therein. Such stamps have a cash value of 10 cents each, are charged at that rate to the internal revenue col ■ lectors to whom issued, and are to be paid for at that rate by the distiller or owner using the same. There must also be burned on the side of each case the proof of the spirits, the registered distillery number, the state and district in which the distillery is located, the real name of the actual bona fide distiller, the year and distilling season (fall or spring), of original inspection or entry into bond, and the date of bottling. The same wording must be placed upon the adhesive engraved [918] strip stamp over the mouth, of the bottle. The use of trade-marks on bottles is prohibited, unless the name df the actual bona fide distiller be placed conspicuously thereon.

By the terms of section 2, under regulations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, are prescribed the warehouse or portions thereof set apart for bottling purposes; the manner in which the business of bottling is done; the notices, bond, and returns to be given and accounts and records to be kept by persons conducting such business; the mode and time of inspection of such spirits; the accounts and records to be kept and returns made by government officers; all other matters and things deemed requisite for the secure and orderly supervision of the business; and the character and issuing of stamps to be used. Under regulations thus made the distiller may strain the spirits, and when necessary reduce such spirits as are withdrawn for bottling purposes to 100 per cent, proof for domestic purposes by the addition of pure water, and to 80 per cent, proof for export purposes. Section 6 imposes a penalty on any person who, among other things, shall re-use any stamp provided under the act after the same shall have been affixed to a bottle, or who shall re-use a bottle as a container of distilled spirits which has once been filled and stamped under the provisions of the act, unless he shall first have removed and destroyed the stamp so previously affixed thereto. Section 7 provides, in so far as pertinent here, that every person who, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, alters, or counterfeits any stamp made or used under any provision of the Bottling Act, or who uses, sells, or has in his possession any such forged, altered, or counterfeited stamp, or any plate or die used or which may be used in the manufacture thereof, shall on conviction be fined not more than $1,000 and be imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding five years. Other sections relate to spirits bottled in 'bond for export.

The spirits named in the act may be whisky or fruit brandy, and, under, the Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, § 405 (section 6070a, Comp. Stat.), gin. The stamps are prepared by the government in the form of a book, longest from right to left (section 3312, R. S. [Comp. St. §' 6094]), and, when detached, leave a stub which remains affixed to the cover. Next to the stub is the stamp which the bottler is required to affix to the case. Attached to and extending to the right of such stamp is the strip stamp. The price paid for the case and strip stamps is 10 cents. The act betrays, a high degree of care and watchful supervision to obtain a pure-bottled high grade liquor, which is exclusively a given designated season’s product and is all of the same kind of product, free from sediment, charcoal, or other removable substance, unadulterated in any manner whatsoever, in such product’s original condition or character, and of a desirable proof. The strip stamp is in effect a guaranty of the proof, purity, and excellence of the spirits contained in the bottle, and for this reason liquor bottled in bond is desired by users.

The National Prohibition Act does not absolutely prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor. In view of section 3, under a permit [919] issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on application, liquor for nonbeverage purposes (for medicinal purposes, for instance) and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, purchased, sold, bartered, transported, imported, exported, delivered, furnished, and possessed. Keeping within the terms of the act, persons may still manufacture, wholesale, and retail it. Section 35 declares all provisions of law inconsistent with the act repealed, but only to the extent of such inconsistencies, and provides that the regulations contained in the act for the manufacture or traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be construed as in addition to existing laws. It expressfy provides that the act shall not relieve any one from paying any taxes or other charges imposed upon the manufacture or traffic in such liquor. Idquor revenue stamps or tax receipts for any illegal manufacture or sale may not be issued in advance, nor is any one relieved from any liability, civil or criminal, incurred under laws existing at the time the act was passed. If the legislative intent was to repeal all then existing revenue laws, the act would have so provided, and the qualifying language found in it would have been absent. The act indicates that some of such existing laws remain operative, and manifests an intention on the part of the Congress to tax the production of liquors, whether they are legally or illegally made. U. S. v. Yuginovich, 256 U. S. 450, 41 Sup. Ct. 551, 65 L. Ed. 1043, decided June 1, 1921, by the United States Supreme Court. Whether appropriate stamps may be issued in advance to persons legally engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquors is not now for determination, but the practice is to issue and require the use of stamps in the bottling of liquors in bond and in the lawful manufacture of liquor.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Skilken, 293 F. 916, 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 419, 1923 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1264 (S.D. Ohio 1923).

293 F. 916 (United States v. Skilken) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Taxation Div. Director
3 N.J. Tax 482 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1981)
Goldberger v. United States
4 F.2d 10 (Third Circuit, 1925)