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 Argument for Defendants in Error. power to enter the premises and stop him. He can only inform the government officers that they may come and seize the premises; that is, may come and seize his own property. The government construction of this statute says to the landlord: "If you give us any information of the illegal acts of your tenant, you shall be punished by a heavy fine." Our con'struction says to the landlord: "If you do not as soon as you learn of the crime of your tenant inform the government, you shall be punished." Which construction will carry out the end of the law? Which construction is it probable the legislature had in view? IX. We claim that any such construction would be unconstitutional. And we cite the dictum of the court in United States v. Distillery at Spring Valley, 11 Blatch. 255, 271. X. But it may be asked why Congress did not more explicitly guard against such a construction as that claimed? The answer is that no Congress for one moment supposed that the government would ever attempt to rob a citizen of his property, when it knew and admitted that he was guilty of no crime. The suggestion made in one case that the remedy for an innocent person is to ask favor of some government officer, is unworthy of the court. If a man has rights a court of justice is the place to maintain them. If he has no rights except by the favor of government officers, it is oppression. But if a person humbled himself to beg, what encouragement has he, when the government with full knowledge of his innocence has instituted and pressed the prosecution. The place for discretion, if any, is in refusing to institute unjust suits. XI. In the very late case of United States v. 16 Barrels Distilled Spirits, 10 Ben. 484, the court although criticising the case in Lowell admit that the statute must be limited in some way and suggest another plan of escaping from its literal terms by limiting the forfeiture to goods found in the very room where the illegal acts were. This seems to us a very illogical way of avoiding the difficulty. It amounts to this. The court says the forfeiture is too unjust to be allowed in a case of magnitude, but if it is only a small amount of property which is affected, we will overlook the injustice. But even if Opinion of the Court. this construction was adopted, there would be too small an amount of goods left here to make it worth the government's while to continue this controversy. XII. There can be no question that the real estate is not liable to forfeiture. A farther question arises as to what is part of the real estate. It is not a question of fixtures but of the division line between real and personal estate. If an article is personal estate, it is not a fixture. If it is a part of the real estate and is severable by a tenant, it is a fixture; but this is allowed only in favor of trade and not in favor of forfeitures and penalties. In a case like that before the court the rule in its utmost strictness as between heir and executor is applicable and all machinery and other articles which are annexed to the realty or which go to make it the manufactory for which it is intended are part of the realty. MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. The property sought to be forfeited consisted of real estate, and of machinery and fixtures and personal property found thereon. The real estate was a single lot of land, part of which was covered by a building and sheds opening by doors into one another, and the rest of which was a yard connected with the buildings. Dixon owned the premises, and used them for a lawful brewery. Stone and Bellows, with Dixon's knowledge and consent, set up and used a still in the principal building, and there carried on the business of distillers, without the still; having been registered, and without giving bond, or keeping books, as required by the internal revenue laws, and with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits which they distilled. The omission to register the still was a cause of forfeiture under § 3258 of the Revised Statutes; the carrying on of the business of a distiller, without having given bond, or with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled, was a cause of forfeiture under § 3281, as reënacted Opinion of the Court. in § 16 of the act of February 8, 1875, c. 36; and the omission to keep books was a cause of forfeiture under § 3305 of the Revised Statutes. The questions presented are of the extent of the forfeiture. By the now settled doctrine of this court, (notwithstanding the opposing dictum of Mr. Justice McLean in United States v. Sugar, 7 Pet. 453, 462, 463,) statutes to prevent frauds upon the revenue are considered as enacted for the public good and to suppress a public wrong, and therefore, although they impose penalties or forfeitures, not to be construed, like penal laws generally, strictly in favor of the defendant; but they are to be fairly and reasonably construed, so as to carry out the intention of the legislature. Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 210; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 145; United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395, 406; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, 380. It will be convenient, in the first place, to ascertain the construction and effect of the provisions of § 16 of the act of 1875, by which, if any person carries on the business of a distiller, without having given bond, or with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, he shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, and there shall be forfeited to the United States: 1st. "All distilled spirits or wines, and all stills or other apparatus fit or intended to be used for the distillation of spirits, owned by such person, wherever found." 2d. "All distilled spirits or wines and personal property, found in the distillery, or in any building, room, yard or inclosure connected therewith, and used with or constituting a part of the premises." 3d. "All the right, title and interest of such person in the lot or tract of land on which such distillery is situated." 4th. "All right, title and interest therein of every person who knowingly has suffered or permitted the business of a distiller to be there carried on, or has connived at the same." 18 Stat. 310. By the first of these provisions, all distilled spirits or wines, and all stills or other apparatus fit or intended to be used for the distillation of spirits, owned by the illicit distiller, and found on the premises or elsewhere, are forfeited, without Opinion of the Court. regard to the question whether the apparatus, by reason of the manner in which and the purpose for which it is placed on or affixed to the land, is technically personal property or realestate. But this provision does not extend to property owned by any other person than the distiller. The second provision forfeits "all distilled spirits or wines and personal property, found in the distillery, or in any building, room, yard or inclosure connected therewith, and used with or constituting part of the premises." The last words, "and used with or constituting part of the premises," like the words next preceding, "connected therewith," aptly designate real estate, and naturally and grammatically relate to and qualify "any building, room, yard or inclosure," and not "all distilled spirits or wines and personal property." The provision is clearly not limited to personal property owned by the illicit distiller. To hold it to be so limited would give no effect to that part of this provision which forfeits distilled spirits or wines; for all distilled spirits or wines owned by the distiller, wherever found, have been already forfeited by the first provision. The first provision is restricted in point of ownership, and not in point of place. The second provision is restricted in point of place, and not in point of ownership. Nor can the second provision be restricted to property fit or intended to be used for the distillation of spirits; for, while the first provision contains such a restriction as regards apparatus, the second provision omits all requirement of fitness or intention for the unlawful use. Each of the two provisions clearly defines its own restrictions, and the restrictions inserted in the one cannot be imported into the other. The second provision must therefore extend to some property not owned by the distiller, and to some property not fit or intended to be used in distilling spirits. In. order to give it such effect as will show any reason for its insertion in the statute, it must be construed to intend, at least, that all personal property which is knowingly and voluntarily permitted by its owner to remain on any part of the premises, and which is actually used, either in the unlawful business, or in any other business openly carried on upon the premises, shall be forfeited, even if he has no participation in or knowl |