Argument for Defendants in Error. At the time of the sale, Dixon pointed it out to Bevington, and said that he delivered it, and Bevington appointed Dixon's son as nominal keeper, but never otherwise took possession of it, and it remained under the control of Dixon, and was used by him. Upon these facts the District Court ruled that the information could not be maintained against the property claimed by Stowell and Bevington, and adjudged that it be dismissed as to that property. The United States alleged exceptions, and, upon the affirmance by the Circuit Court of the judgment of the District Court, sued out this writ of error. Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Alphonso Hart, Solicitor of Internal Revenue, for the plaintiffs in error, cited: Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U. S. 395, 399; United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch, 398, 405; United States v. Brigantine Mars, 8 Cranch, 417; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 311; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 362; Caldwell v. United States, 8 How. 366; Thatcher's Distilled Spirits, 103 U. S. 679; 16 Opinions Attys. Gen. 41; United States v. 7 Barrels Distilled Oil, 6 Blatchford, 174; United States v. 56 Barrels Whiskey, 1 Abbott (U. S.) 93; S. C. 4 Int. Rev. Rec. 106; United States v. Whiskey, 11 Int. Rev. Rec. 109; United States v. 100 Barrels Spirits, 1 Dillon, 49, 57; S. C. 12 Int. Rev. Rec. 153; S. C. (sub nom. Henderson's Distilled Spirits) 14 Wall. 44; United States v. Distillery at Spring Valley, 11 Blatchford, 255; United States v. 76,125 Cigars, 18 Fed. Rep. 147; Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114; United States v. All the Distilled Spirits, 2 Ben. 486. Mr. Edgar J. Sherman and Mr. Charles U. Bell for defendants in error. The only material part of the record is the agreed facts, by which it appears that neither of the claimants knew that an illicit business was carried on in the premises, and that a legal business was ostensibly and actually carried on there. Argument for Defendants in Error. The court must find that these claimants were innocent, not only of any wrongful intent, but even of negligence or blame of any kind. The question then to be argued is whether the property of a person innocent of any charge or suspicion of crime or negligence is to be forfeited, and he thereby punished, because a third person has committed an offence. To the consideration of this question we invite the attention of the court. I. Penal laws are to be construed strictly. 1 Bl. Com. 91; Margate Pier Co. v. Hannam, 3 B. & Ald. 266; Edwards v. Dick, 4 B. & Ald. 212; 'Green v. Kemp, 13 Mass. 515; S. C. 7 Am. Dec. 169; Reed v. Davis, 8 Pick. 513; Caledonian Railway v. North British Railway, 6 App. Cas. 114, 122; Walton, Ex parte, 17 Ch. D. 746; Jackson v. Collins, 3 Cowen, 89, 96; People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 358, 380; S. C. 8 Am. Dec. 243. Especially forfeitures are not favored. Hubbard v. Johnstone, 3 Taunton, 177; Adams v. Bancroft, 3 Sumner, 384. II. Forfeiture is a punishment, and therefore, if a man who is wholly innocent can ever be punished for the crime of another, it must require language absolutely unequivocal before the court will so construe a statute. The cases we have cited show how strong the language must be. The language of the law and the intent of the law must clearly coincide in requiring such a construction. All the cases assume that in order to subject property to a forfeiture, the owner must himself have violated the law or must knowingly have suffered the property to go into possession of and control of some other person engaged in the regulated business. That is, if he either himself violates the law or knowing that another is violating the law permits him to have the use of his property in the unlawful business, or even permits him to have the use of his property in a business which is lawful, only if it be lawfully conducted, he may forfeit the property. There must be some degree of blame on the owner of the property; for property has no guilty character except as connected with persons who are chargeable with responsibility or blame. If the owner is absolutely innocent the property cannot be forfeited. The mere accident of its situation cannot give it a Argument for Defendants in Error. criminal character independent of its owner's fault. United States v. Barrels of Spirits, 1 Lowell, 239; Dobbins's Distilled Spirits v. United States, 96 U. S. 395. III. The general object of the statute is to enforce the payment of a tax on all liquor manufactured. It proposes to accomplish this object by inflicting punishments of fine, imprisonment and forfeiture on all actually guilty of attempting to defraud the government of the tax and by requiring vigilance on the part of all who are in any way concerned in the business and property to prevent and disclose any illegal acts under a penalty of a forfeiture of their goods. The legislature thought that the watchfulness of a man whose property was in danger would be greater than that of any government officer. Therefore every one concerned with an open distillery is bound to see that the law is not violated. If he chooses to leave his property in such a distillery, he does so knowing the risk and ought first to satisfy himself that there is no violation of law. But if the distillery is a secret one and the owner is in ignorance of its existence and in no fault, what conceivable purpose is served by punishing him by a forfeiture of his property? IV. If then the construction of the statute claimed by the government is, first, unjust, and, second, in no way within the object or intent of the law, the next question would seem to be whether the words of the statute are so imperative that we are driven to say that Congress intended this unjust and unreasonable thing when they passed the law. We claim on the contrary that it clearly appears that the intention was just and reasonable and that Congress does not deserve the imputation which the government would cast upon them. V. Examining the whole chapter, Rev. Stat. Title 35, c. 4, in the light of these principles we find the law contemplates (1) open lawful distilleries which are stringently regulated with numerous penalties and forfeitures. §§ 3259, 3260, 3262, 3263, 3264, 3267, 3269, 3271, 3275, 3277, 3279, 3280, 3283, 3284, 3286, 3288, 3303, 3304, 3305. In all cases arising under these sections knowledge of the Argument for Defendants in Error. nature of the business at least is either expressly required or is assumed from the very nature of the thing. Thus every such open distillery must have a conspicuous sign stating that it is a distillery. § 3279. For instance, the elaborate provisions of § 3269 are absurd if applied to an illicit distillery. Of what consequence is it whether the pipes are painted black or red so long as the whole is concealed and secret. The spirit of the law is farther well indicated by § 3262 which contains elaborate provisions, the sole object of which appears to be to protect the government on one side and on the other to secure all innocent parties from loss. The spirit of that section is that no person is to be subjected to the forfeiture unless he has consented to assume that liability. United States v. Distillery at Spring Valley, 11 Blatchford, 255, 271. It is clear then that the statute both by its express provisions and by necessary implication, in the case of open distilleries, imposes no forfeiture except on those who have expressly consented or knowingly exposed their property to the risk of forfeiture. But there is another class of distilleries against which the law is also aimed; which are illicit distilleries. This falls under §§ 3257 and 3281, which latter section has been superseded by Stat. 1875, c. 36, § 16, 18 Stat. 310. In this latter case the owner of the property may be wholly innocent of any knowledge of the existence of the distillery. The proposition which we desire to maintain is that if he is ignorant of the existence of the distillery, his property cannot be forfeited. As we have seen in case of lawful distilleries no person's goods are forfeited unless he has knowingly exposed them to forfeiture. There is no reason why any harsher rule should be applied in case of illicit distilleries. Gregory v. United States, 17 Blatchford, 328. It is undoubtedly true that the presumption is against any one whose property is found in the illicit distillery, especially if such property is in its nature adapted to use in the illegal business. But it is equally clear that the owner may rebut Argument for Defendants in Error. this presumption and prove that he was wholly innocent. United States v. One Still, 5 Blatchford, 403; S. C. 5 Int. Rev. Rec. 189. Take the case for instance of stolen property. It is clear that it would be unjust, unreasonable and preposterous that the real owner should forfeit such property by its being found in an illicit distillery. Suppose that a person drives his horse upon premises secretly used as a distillery for some innocent and legitimate purpose and while there the distillery and the horse are seized, cannot he claim it? These illustrations and others of the like class which will suggest themselves prove two points: first, that innocence may be proved, and second, that there are exceptions to the literal meaning of the law. The moment it is admitted that there are such exceptions the matter is settled, for if there is any exception, no one will dispute that our case will fall within it. 2. Opinions Attys. Gen. 428; The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152; Peisch v. Ware, 4 Cranch, 347, 362. VI. It ought to be enough simply to state our position. If a man leaves his property and parts with the control of it for a legal and proper purpose, no act of the tenant, unknown to him, and without his consent, can deprive him of his property. VII. We understand that the decision in United States v. 33 Barrels of Spirits, 1 Lowell, 239, covers this case; and we cite the words of Judge Lowell: "It is impossible to believe that any such sweeping condemnation is intended to be passed founded upon mere proximity in place upon the goods of all persons, innocent or guilty." It is a rule of law as well as of natural justice that statutes will not be understood to forfeit property except for the fault of the owner, general or special, unless such a construction is unavoidable. VIII. As the statute has absolutely required the assent of the landlord or lessor to the business of licensed distilling, it would certainly have reserved to him some power to control the property and restrain violations of the law, if it had intended to hold him responsible. If the law is as is claimed by the government the case would stand like this: A man lets. his estate for a legal and legitimate business. After a time he learns that the tenant has set up an illicit still. He has no |