56 FEDERAL REPORTER. �John K. Valentine, U. S. District Attorney, for the United States. �William H. Staake, for defendant. �Butler, D. J. A new trial is asked for on two groundg — Fi^'st, that the statute under which the indictmeut is drawn does not require payaient of the tax specified in advance of prosecuting the business; second, that the defendant waa not a "wholesale dealer," as chargea. �Section 3242 of the Eevised Statutes provides "that every person who carries on the business of a brewer, or whole- sale or retail dealer in malt liquors, witlwut hacing paid a special tax therefor, as required by law, shall, besides being liable for the payment of a tax, be fmed not less than $10, nor more than $500." �Section 3232 proddes "that no person shall be engagea in or carry on any trade or business hereinafter mentioned, until he has paid a special tax therefor, in a manner hereinafter provided." �Section 3237 providea "that ail special taxes shall become due on the first day of May in each year, or on çommencing any trade or business on which such tax is imposed. In the former case the tax shall be reckoned for one year; and in the latter case it shall be reckoned proportionately from the first day of the month in which the liability to a special tax commenced, to the first day of May following." �Section 3239 requires the stamp denoting the payment of the tax to be prominently exhibited at ail times, in the place where the business is conducted, and provides a penalty for failure to observe this requirement. �The foregoing provisions leave no room for doubt that the tax must be paid in advance. The business is prohibited, except when thus lioensed; until the tax is paid it cannot be lawfully pursued. �The case of U, S. v. Thirty-Jlve Barrels of Spirits, 9 Leg. Int. Eev. Eec. 67, 68, does not, as I understand it, involve the point here under consideration. It arose out of a claim to forfeiture, under the statute of July 20, 1868, relating to distilleries. The provisions of that statute differ materially ����
