United States v. Finlay, 1 Abb. U. S. 364, 3 Pitts. R. 126. Internal-revenue officers disclosing oper- R. S., s. 3167. 28 Stat. 557. Boske v. Comingone, 177 U. S. 459, 462, 44 L. ed. 846; Ledbetter v. United States, 170 Id. 606, 42 L. ed. 1162. Officials and private persons may not be joined in one indictment under § 3169. United States v. McDonald, 3 Dillon, 543. But counts for a conspiracy to defraud and for having a knowledge of a violation of the internal-revenue laws may. If both charges, however, constitute substantially but one offense, the court should render but one judgment on the verdict. Ex parte Joyce, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 297. In order to find an officer or agent guilty of demanding or receiving greater sums than he is entitled to, the jury must be satisfied that he knew he was violating the law. United States v. Highleyman, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 138. Terms of compromise proposed to the Commissioner before trial on an indictment under § 3169, do not come within the purview of § 3229. 14 A. G. Op. 43. See United States v. Cullerton, 8 Biss. 166. And for construction of § 3169 and evidence, see United States v. McKee, 3 Dillon, 546 and 551; United States v. Babcock, Id. 581. As to extortion, oppression, compromise of charge, or complaint, see United States v. Deaver, 14 F. R. 595, 4 Crim. Law Mag. 209; Clark v. United States, 60 Ga. 156. The offenses in the first and second paragraphs are distinct. United States v. Harned, 43 F. R. 376, 378. See 36 Int. Rev. Rec. 47. Services charged as rendered "under color of office" are not rendered in "the performance of a duty" as specified in clause 2 of this section. United States v. Williams, 76 F. R. 223, 227. Clauses 1, 2 of § 3169 relate to offenses of officers or agents acting under the revenue laws. Williams v. United States, 168 U. S. 382, 42 L. ed. 509. Officers in the revenue service, who conspire with others to defraud the United States, may be prosecuted under § 3169, or they may be joined with the individual conspirators in an indictment under § 5440. Grunberg v. United States, 145 F. R. 81. Counts charging a defendant with the forgery of Chinese duplicate certificates, with uttering them, and with violating § 3169, as an officer in the revenue service, by negligently and designedly permitting the commission of such offenses, may be joined in the same indictment, under § 1024. Dillard v. United States, 141 F. R. 303. As to negligently and designedly permitting a violation of the law by another person, see Mason v. United States, 162 F. R. 23. Collectors issuing stamps before collec- 1 March, 1879, s. 1; 20 Stat. 327. R. S., s. 3170. R. S., s. 3177. National banks are not exempt from examination by any internalrevenue officer here mentioned. But a supervisor's clerk is not such an officer. United States v. Rhawn, 11 Phila. 521, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 235. In an action by the United States to recover a forfeiture of $500 under this section, for a refusal to allow a collector to examine paid bank checks, it was held that as the information did not allege that the said checks were not duly stamped, it was insufficient. United States v. Mann, 95 U. S. 580, 24 L. ed. 531. An indictment charging in the words of the statute that the defendant "did forcibly attempt to rescue" property seized by a revenue collector does not specify with sufficient certainty what acts were done which constituted the attempt. United States v. Ford, 34 F. R. 26. A person may be guilty under this section of the offense of obstructing or hindering an officer from entering a building for the purpose of examination, even though he does not own the building or the articles subject to tax, and did not make, produce, or keep them. United States v. Fears, 3 Woods, 510. See also the same case as to the requisites of an indictment under this section. An internal-revenue officer who has obtained information of the violation of an internal-revenue law, in the manner authorized by this section, is entitled to an informer's share of the proceeds of the fine or forfeiture. 13 A. G. Op. 369. See United States v. Patrick, 54 F. R. 338, 344. Where two persons composing a partnership make and sign, in their partnership name, a false return to the collector or his deputy, they may be jointly indicted therefor. United States v. McGinnis, 1 Abb. U. S. 120. Chapter Three. - Special taxes. Failing to display special-tax stamp in R. S., s. 3239. 1 Oct., 1890, s. 26; 26 Stat. 618. As to Oklahoma, see 19 A. G. Op. 306. Regulations made by the commissioner of internal revenue respecting the assessment and collection of the taxes have the force of statutes, and his acts are presumed to be the acts of the Secretary. The collectors cannot be compelled by a State court to disclose matters recorded in the internal-revenue office, when the disclosure violates such regulations. In re Huttman, 70 F. R. 699; In re Weeks, 82 Id. 729. But matters of which the public are entitled to notice under § 3240, such as an application for payment of the internal-revenue tax as a retail dealer, are not privileged even in the State courts. In re Hirsch, 74 F. R. 928. A collector cannot be compelled to disclose as a witness before a court or the grand jury the names of persons in whose places of business special-stamp taxes are posted, or the places in which the same are posted. In re Huttman, 70 F. R. 699; In re Weeks, 82 Id. 729; In re Comingore, 96 Id. 552, affirmed by 177 U. S. 459, 44 L. ed. 846; In re Lamberton, 124 F. R. 446. But see In re Hirsch, 74 Id. 928; United States v. Clare, 2 Id. 55, 57. Carrying on business as rectifier, liquor- tax R. S., ss. 3242, 3281. 8 Feb., 1875, s. 16; 18 Stat. 310. 13 June, 1898, s. 36; 30 Stat. 467. It has been held that violations of this section must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment, and not by information. United States v. Johannesen, 35 F. R. 411. If the indictment charges the defendant with carrying on the business of a retail liquor-dealer continuously between certain dates at a certain place, it need not state the means or circumstances by which he did so. United States v. Howard, 1 Sawyer, 507. And the same rule holds in the case of a wholesale dealer. United States v. Page, 2 Sawyer, 353. It need not aver that a defendant, who is charged with carrying on the business of a distiller, in any of the ways specified in Rev. Sts. § 3247, without having paid the special tax or given bond, has registered his still or given notice of his intention to distil. United States v. Mathoit, 1 Sawyer, 142. A count for retailing liquor without payment of the special tax, and a count for dealing in manufactured tabacco without |