Case ID: us-ct-cl_35/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Howry, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS C. EAGER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 19808.
    Decided May 14, 1900.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    An inspector of customs at San Francisco is on duty at a railroad station delivering packages of imported goods to draymen to be taken to the appraiser’s office. A firm is under suspicion of fraud by false invoices. The special Treasury agent on duty at the custom-house instructs one Murray, an inspector, to watch the importations of the firm. Murray visits the railroad station and tells the claimant that if he keeps his eye open he may find something to his advantage. The drayman declining to receive a broken case, the claimant examines it and discovers that it contains woolen goods instead of cotton; as shown by the invoice. Seizures follow, resulting in the prosecution of the firm, a compromise of the proceedings, and the payment to the United States of @70,000 and a fine of @5,000.
    
      I. Public policy sanctions the offer of rewards for special diligence in the detection and punishment of crime; but officers must not neglect their plain duty or close their eyes to any violation of law which can be enforced by ordinary vigilance. An officer must discharge his duty without reference to extra compensation or reward.
    II. Where the result of an inspector’s visit to a station is the examination of a broken package belonging to a suspected ñrm, and the examination is in the line of the officer’s duty, it would be inequitable to permit him to recover a reward.
    
      The Reporters'1 statement of tbe case:
    The following are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court:
    I. Since tbe year 1889 tbe claimant bas been an inspector of customs at San Francisco, Cal. During tbe month of Sep.-tember, 1891, be was on duty at one of tbe railroad stations at that port as sucb inspector, delivering designated packages of imported goods to United States draymen, to be taken to tbe appraiser’s office, and in delivering other packages of imported merchandise to tbe importers upon presentation bjr thom of duty-paid permits from the proper customs officer.
    At and before that time (September, 1891) tbe members of tbe firm named in tbe xietition — Messrs. Neuberger, Reiss & Co., of San Francisco — were under suspicion of defrauding tbe revenues by false invoices of goods imported by them from foreign countries which were subject to higher duties than those indicated by the invoices.
    Some time in July, 1891, tbe special agent of tbe Treasury Department on duty at tbe custom-house at San Francisco, Mr. J. E. Evans, bad been informed by tbe supervising-special agent of tbe Treasury Department at Washington, D. C. (the bead of that branch of tbe customs service), that members of the said firm were selling imported goods at rates which indicated fraud on their part, and that it would be well to watch their goods (imports) with a view of detecting the fraud suspected. Other importing firms at San Francisco bad also imparted their suspicions of tbe said firm to Special Agent Evans.
    Acting upon this information Evans, about tbe latter part of July, 1891, instructed one J. F. Murray, an inspector who bad been assigned to duty in bis office a short time before, and wbo spent most of bis time during official hours along the docks and railroad sheds, to keep a special watch over the importations of the above-named firm, with a view of detecting frauds, if any existed, with reference to their importations of foreign goods. The action of Murray in carrying out this instruction of his superior officer, Evans, is set forth in the following reports made by him to the latter on the dates set forth in said reports:
    “Poet Costa, Sept. 24.
    
    “Mr. J. F. EvANs; Special Agent.
    
    “ SiR: Since writing you this a. m. I have seen the morning-papers containing an account of the seizure of N. P. C. more of 13 C dry goods ex r. r., and I am curious to know if the seizure was not made through a suggestion of mine to the officer at the r. r. If you remember, I went there Tuesday p. m., and when I returned to the office reported to you regarding the failure of the weigher to weigh a lot of vermicelli, and gave you the mark and No. of cases next a. m. before taking the steamer. At the same Tuesday p. m. I told you of the fact that one of N. P. C.’s cases that belonged to their store had been left at the r. r. in order to be recoopered, as it had been bursted partially open in handling it on or from the cars. The inspector told me that contents were exposed, but he could not tell whether the case contained linens or other goods, as the inside pkgs. were securely wrapped. I suggested to him that it would be a good plan in such cases as that, where the box was broken, to compare his permit with the contents of case, and told him at the same time that if I were in his place I would examine that case% quietly when the men quit work, as I had reason to view that mark with suspicion, but while I thought, upon looking.at his permits, and seeing special Nos. ordered to appr. store, that it was all right. Yet 1 urged on the officer, when he could do so without attracting attention, to reopen the case. I did not feel warranted in doing so on the mere suspicion and perhaps frustrate measures we were considering by attracting the attention of r. r. employees. I don’t know whether my suggestion brought about the seizure or not, but if it did our office should have due credit for it. I don’t care to be known in it myself, as I can work better by not having too much publicity given me or my duties. The inspector promised to follow my suggestion. If he did, he must have discovered the imposition. You were dictating a letter to Mr. Chanfiing when I made my verbal report to you, and I promised to give you the vermicelli the next morning, which I did. The searchers are nearly through, and I am informed by them that they have about abandoned all hopes of finding opium on this steamer. I may go to the city Friday night unless you wish me to remain longer. In such case wire me.
    ■ “Bespectfully, J. F. Murray, Znspr.”
    
    The second report is as follows:
    “Office of Special AgeNT,
    “Treasury DepartmeNt,
    
      “/San Francisco, Oct. 7; 1891.
    
    “Mr. J. F. EvaNS, Special Agent.
    
    “Sir: In compliance with your request to furnish jrou with a summary of my report to the collector, made through you, regarding my connection with the discovery of the frauds practiced by Neuberger, Beiss & Co. on the Govt., I beg leave to submit the following:
    “In my report, made ror the collector’s information, I recited the fact that, acting under your instructions to scrutinize closely the importations of certain merchants, particularly those of Neuberger, Beiss & Co., and noticing by the railroad manifests that IS cases bearing their mark, N. B. C., had been reported on Sept. 21st, and had been entered ‘duty paid,’I proceeded to the r. r. freight sheds on the 22d Sept., and found one case broken and repaired, bearing their mark, and destined for importer’s store, under the firm’s penal bond. After asking the inspector why the case had not been taken by the importer’s drayman, he replied that the drayman refused to take it by reason of its bad condition, and that he had it repaired. I then asked him if the contents were visible before it was recoopered. His answer was that packages could be seen in the case, but they were securely wrapped. I questioned the officer further as to whether he ever compared contents of a broken case, when such opportunities offered, with what the permit called for. He said, ‘No; that he did not think he had the right to do so.’ I concluded this was the opportunity to examine the case destined for the firm’s store without attracting the importers’ attention, my object being to get hold of some pkge. and compare same with the invoice, without arousing the suspicions of the firm that they were being-watched. Then telling the inspector that I had warrant enough for him to reopen the case, and in confidence imparted the information to him that this particular firm were under a cloud; that invoices of theirs had been ‘raised’ in the past; that they had paid penalties for undervaluation; that honest importers of this city had complained to the Dept, and custom-house of their inability to sell imported goods at the prices they were sold by said firm, and concluded by directing the officer to open the case and examine its contents after the r. r. employees quit work, for I bad still m yiew the necessity of not putting the firm on their guard, which might happen if I were seen tampering with the case in the presence of the numerous employees of the r. r. co. The officer promised to do as I wished, and when about leaving repeated my injunction to not fail opening the case under any circumstances. Then telling him that I was going to ‘ Pacific Mail dock ’ to look after another shipment for said firm which had arrived on the steamer Colima via Panama, leftthe r. r. sheds. The inspector did as directed, with the result of uncovering the methods bj^ which the great frauds were committed. The following day, Sept. 23d, I had been directed by the special agent to go to Port Costa, but before leaving saw Inspectors Eagar and Holmes hastening from the custom-house, and, as I afterwards learned, with an order from the collector to take possession of the goods in the store, delivered by Mr. Eagar the previous day to the importers’ drayman. We exchanged salutations as we passed, but the r. r. inspector, Mr. Eagar, failed to impart the information to me regarding the contents of the case he examined under my instructions. Had he done so, it would have resulted in the recovery of 5 cases ex str. Colima, which I knew had been delivered from ‘ Pacific Mail dock ’ the same day the goods left the r. r., Sept. 22d. I should certainly have called the collector’s attention to the ‘ Golinna cases,’ and asked him for an order to recover them, had I been made acquainted with the facts, and they should have been as easily obtainable as those from the r. r., but I departed in ignorance, and upon my return, two days later, the Colima cases were called for, but it was too late. The firm said they could not, and did not, produce them.
    “The foregoing covers substantially the same ground of my report to you, dated 30th ultimo, made for use of collector’s office. I hope the information, furnished fr,om day to day as you are aware, contributed materially to the discovery of the frauds.
    “ Respectfully, JNO. F. Murray,
    “ Clii/nese Inspector.”
    The above report, dated September 24, was made on that date of the year 1891.
    II. The claimant’s action in the matter was as follows:
    On or about the 20th of September, 1891, the said firm presented to claimant duty-paid permits from the collector of customs at San Francisco for the delivery of 22 cases of goods imported by them, which cases of goods were at that time in the custody of the claimant, as inspector of customs, at one of the railroad depots in that city, and on the morning of the 22d be delivered all the cases designated in the permits to the drayman of the firm, except one which the latter would not receive because it was ‘ ‘ broken and in bad condition. ” The cover or lid of the box or case had been roughly handled and badly broken in transit to San Francisco. All the boards were off the top of the case. The case and its contents remained in that condition in the custody of' the claimant at the railroad station on the 21st and 22d of September, 1891.
    On the forenoon of September 22, 1891, Inspector Murray, acting upon the instructions of Special Agent Evans, which were to scrutinize closely the importations of certain merchandise, and particularly those of said firm, visited the said railroad station, as he had noticed by looking over some railroad manifests that 18 cases of goods bearing said firm’s mark had been entered duty paid the previous day. When he arrived at the station he met the claimant, and, after looking-over some books in the office, he and claimant went out into the railroad shed, and Murray told him that there had been some complaints at the custom-house about certain firms, naming, among others, the firm of Neuberger, Reiss & Co., and said to claimant that “if he kept his eye open he might find something to his (claimant’s) advantage.” Claimant then called Murray’s attention to the broken case of goods — the only one of the above-mentioned 22 cases for which delivery permits had been issued to that firm that remained in his custody — and he suggested to Murray that he (Murray) might examine it. He said no, he did not care to look at it, and that he was going from there to the mail dock.
    Before Inspector Murray left, however, he suggested to claimant to open the broken case of goods and examine its contents after the railroad employees had quit work.
    When the drayman of the firm declined to receive the broken case that same morning, the claimant ordered a laborer at the depot to bring it near the office, where it could be fixed, and he told the laborer that he would see if it was all right before he nailed it up. The case was removed accordingly near the office, and was there before Murray arrived, and it remained there in that condition until about half past 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the same date, September 22, 1891, when, as claimant says, “it had to be fixed up for delivery.” He then examined the case and discovered that it contained woolen goods, instead of the cotton goods indicated by the invoice entry at the custom-house. Half an hour later, 4 o’clock p. m., the chief inspector came to the railroad depot from the custom-house, and the claimant talked the matter over with him, and they decided that the case of goods should be taken to the custom-house the next morning, which was done. The next morning the claimant reported the discovery of the fraud to the surveyor and to the collector of the port.
    The discovery so made by the claimant resulted in the seizure on the 23d of September, 1891, by order of the collector of the port, of the said 22 cases of merchandise imported by the said firm of Neuberger, Reiss & Co., including the 21 cases delivered to them the day before, 12 of which cases contained goods corresponding with the invoices, and ten of which, including the broken case, contained smuggled goods. A few days thereafter 14 other cases of goods of later importation by that firm were seized by order of the collector of the port, only 4 of which contained goods corresponding with the invoices, and the remaining 10 contained smuggled goods. These seizures resulted in a criminal prosecution of the firm, a compromise of the proceedings, pursuant to section 3469 of'the Revised Statutes, and the payment of $70,000 and a fine of $5,000 bjr the firm to the United States, as set forth in the following letter:
    “Treasury Department,
    “Office of the Secretary,
    “ Washington, D. 0February 29, 1892.
    
    “To the Solicitor of the Treasury.
    “Sir: The Department is in receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, reporting upon the offer submitted by Mr. J. M. Rothchild, attorney for Messrs. Neuberger, Reiss & Co., of San Francisco, to pay seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) to the United States in full settlement of all claims against said firm and its members by reason of alleged violations of customs laws up to the time of the seizure recently made by the collector of customs at San Francisco, and to enter a plea of guilty to the indictment now pending in the United States courts against Mr. Bernard Reiss.
    “It appears from the papers in the case that the seizure in question embraced, among others,, twenty-two cases merchandise, covered by three invoices, which were taken possession of by the collector on the 23rd of September, 1891; that consumption entries had been made for all these goods and the usual number of packages selected for examination, and that twelve of the cases, being found to correspond with the invoices, were returned to the importers, while the remaining ten cases, covered by two invoices, were seized, the examination disclosing that their contents did not correspond with the invoices and entries in that, instead of being cotton towels and jute goods, paying an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent, they were found to be Indian cloths, woolen trouserings and coatings, and cotton and woolen dress goods of much greater value, and subject to much higher rates of duty, the value fixed by the appraiser being $5,227.35.
    “It further appears that a few days after this occurrence , another invoice for the same firm arrived, covering four cases of cotton quilts, valued at $327.69; that no entry being made, the goods were sent to the appraiser’s stores for examination; whereupon it was found that while one of the cases contained cottons, as per invoice, the other three contained woolen cloths, serges, cashmeres, diagonals, ladies’ cloth, silks, velvets, and bead passementerie, to the appraised value of $2,793; that another consignment to the above firm arrived on the 5th of October, 1891, of six cases, invoiced as five cases of Bannsley linen crash, and one of linen glass towels, which cases, in the absence of entry, were sent to the appraiser’s store for examination; whereupon it was found that while the contents of two of the cases corresponded with the invoice, the remaining four cases contained velvets of German manufacture and Italian cloths, which did not appear in the invoice, and were valued by the .appraiser at $1,655.79, and that the third and last consignment came from Roubaix, France, invoiced as cotton quilts of the value of $397.21, no entry of which was made, but upon examination, one of the four cases was found to correspond with the invoice, while the other three contained woolen dress goods, silks, Lyons velvets, and two pairs of ladies’ shoes, the whole being appraised at $2,622.00.
    “ Special Agent Evans, in reporting in this matter, states that for how long or to what extent those frauds have been committed, or the persons connected therewith implicated, is not clearly shown by any evidence yet discovered, but that the fact has been ascertained that of the thirty-six cases of merchandise seized or taken possession of since September 23 last aforesaid sixteen corresponded. with the invoice and twenty did not.
    “The special agent states that the wisdom of attempting a criminal prosecution on the one hand, or of seeking to recover to the revenues of the United States a portion or whole of the amount of which it has been defrauded on the other, upon such, terms as may be obtained by settlement or compromise, is a matter that must be left to the Department to determine.
    “You state that while the special agent approves of an offer of compromise made by said firm in a less amount, it is fair to say that his letter of approval may be considered an approval of the pending offer, and that you are satisfied that the best interests of the Government will be conserved by accepting the offer of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) and theplea of guilty, and therefore recommend that it be accepted.
    “The language of the offer is that the said sum ‘shall be received by the United States in full settlement of all its claims and demands against Neuberger, Eeiss & Co., and all its members, for any violations or infractions of the customs laws of the United States up to the time of the seizure of merchandise consigned to Neuberger, Eeiss & Co., or N. E., or N. E. & Co., at San Francisco, and including the infractions embraced in such seizure, and that the merchandise seized as well as the merchandise held by the collector at San Francisco, belonging to or consigned to said Neuberger, Eeiss & Co., but at this time unclaimed, shall'be appraised, and the duties upon the actual appraised valuation thereof determined, the amount of such duties to be deducted by the United States from the amount so to be deposited, and all the said merchandise restored to said Neuberger, Eeiss & Co.’
    “The Department has duly considered the facts in the case, and in view of the concurrent recommendation of yourself and the special agent, and of the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by section 3469 of the Eevised Statutes, hereby accepts said offer of compromise, and jmu will please to request the U. S. attorney at San Francisco to cany the same into effect.
    “I may add that under date of the 22nd ultimo the Department addressed a letter to the collector of customs at San Francisco, in which he was advised that so much of the seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) deposited as may be necessary is to be applied to the payment of the appraised value of the merchandise of said firm under seizure, which is thereupon to be released and delivered to said firm, and that the district attorney had been instructed by the Attorney-General that upon a plea of guilty or of noli contendere in the criminal suit against B. Eeiss the Government will be satisfied by the imposition of a fine of $5,000, which is to be paid in addition to the seventj'- thousand dollars ($70,000) above referred to.
    “ Eespectfully, yours,
    (Signed) “O. L. SpauldiNG,
    ‘ ‘ Acting Secretary. ”
    
      Tbe goods so seized were delivered to said firm as above set forth. The appraised value is not shown to the court (except as in above letter in respect to 20 cases appraised at $12,478.14), nor is the amount of duties paid or payable upon said 36 cases of goods out of the said $70,000 or out of the $6,000 fine shown to the court.
    
      Mr. George A. King for the claimant. Mr. Simon Lyon was on the brief:
    The right of this court to reexamine the action of the Secretary of the Treasury and to consider the case upon its merits, if previously doubtful, is now settled by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Medbury v. United States, 173 IT. S. 492. It was there held that under a statute providing that “the Secretary of the Interior -shall cause to be repaid to the person who made such entry,” etc., the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior to make such repayment was not exclusive, but that on a failure to secure favorable action by that officer the party might invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
    The present case is entirely analogous. Here the statute provides 4 ‘ That whenever any officer of the customs or other person shall detect and seize goods, wares, or merchandise in the act of being smuggled, or which have been smuggled, he shall be entitled to such compensation therefor as the Secretary of the Treasury shall award, not exceeding in amount one-half of the net proceeds, if any, resulting from such seizure, after deducting all duties, costs, and charges connected therewith.” The Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance of the power conferred upon him by this act, prescribed a general regulation, whereby “detectors and seizors will be awarded 35 per centum ” of the net proceeds of the seizure, except in special cases. Here the party claiming to have detected and seized the smuggled merchandise has preferred his claim to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury has awarded him nothing. The jurisdiction of this court to examine such a case on its merits is not only well settled by the decision in Medbury v. United States, just cited, but has also been sustained in principle by this court in Shelton v. United States, 8 C. Cls., 487; Bradley v. United 
      States, 12 C. Cls., 578, and Horton v. United States, 31 C! Cls., 148.
    The facts thus supposed as to circumstances which would entitle the claimant to the benefit of the reward are precisely those which in actual fact exist. The inspector, Murray, was not specially charged with any duty pertaining to importation of merchandise. He merely communicated general rumors that frauds against the revenue had been committed. He gave no information as to what they were, and did not even know how they were done, supposing (p. 49) that it was by exchange or substitution of packages in the warehouse, which did not appear to be the mode actually adopted by the guilty parties.
    This court says in Bradley v. United States (12 C. Cls., 578-594), “The communication of a vague rumor, commonly known in commercial circles and elsewhere, that a person has committed frauds against the revenue, without some information as to what frauds have been committed and some clue to their detection, does not constitute one an informer within the meaning of the statute.” (13 Opins. Atty. Gen., 239.)
    W ere Murray a claimant in this court for the reward, the court would respond to his claim as it did to the one set up in the case just cited: “ The facts show conclusively, we think, that the claimant not only did not inform the Government officers of the frauds upon which the forfeitures in this case were founded, but also that he had no actual knowledge of. those frauds or any others committed by the same parties.”
    The Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of United States v. Matthews (173 U. S., 381,) has expressed a view that public policy amply sanctions the offer of rewards to officers of the United States for special vigilance in the detection and punishment of crime, and has likened the discretion held in that case to have been vested in the Attorney-General to that vested by the act of 1874, now under consideration, in the Secretary of the Treasury (p. 386). It quotes with approval on that subject the language of Mr. Justice Grier in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court in Dorsheimerv. United States (7 C. Cls., 43, 44): “The offer of a portion of such penalties to the collectors is to stimulate and reward their zeal and industry in detecting fraudulent attempts to evade the payments of duties and taxes.”
    
      To so construe tbe law and the customs regulations as to debar the present claimant from the receipt of the promised share of the penalty, in the language of Inspector Murray in this case, “will discourage customs officers in their efforts to detect and prevent frauds, while to give him a liberal reward will have the opposite effect.”
    
      Mr. FeKw Brannigan (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Bodge) for the defendants:
    An examination of the statute will show that it is only in cases of “ smuggling,” as therein defined, that the Secretary of the Treasury has any power to make an award to an “ officer of the customs ” for detecting revenue frauds.
    As the petition in this cause distinctly alleges that the goods, wares, and merchandise seized had been invoiced under consular certification for importation at New Orleans and were so imported, and transported in bond from that place to San Francisco, and that on their arrival at the latter port certain packages of them had been ordered, on permits duly issued, to be sent to the appraiser’s store for examination, and the other packages, on like permits, ordered to be delivered to , the importers, it follows that the fraud attempted by the latter was not “smuggling” within the meaning of the law, and therefore that claimant has shown no cause of action against the defendants.
    It is unnecessary to dwell on another defect of the petition, namely, that while it sets forth that judicial proceedings had been instituted on claimant’s information, it does not allege that his claim for compensation had been established to the satisfaction of the court or judge who had cognizance of the proceedings, as required by section six of said act.
    Nor is it necessary to argue the question of jurisdiction, even though there were no such defects of allegation, because this statute clearly confers upon the Secretary of the Treasury the sole and exclusive power to make an “award” to customs officers or other persons for detecting and seizing smuggled goods; and although it requires the court or judge having cognizance of the proceedings to certify the value of the detector’s or seizor’s services,' it nevertheless expressly says that the judicial certificate of value shall not be conclusive on the Secretary, and that it is the Secretary and not a court or judge who shall make the “award.”
   Howry, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This -claim is prosecuted by the plaintiff as the alleged detector and seizor of certain goods smuggled into the United States at the port of San Francisco, in the State of California. It is alleged to be founded upon the provisions of the act entitled “An act to amend the customs-revenue laws and repeal moieties,” approved June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. L., 186), and article 979 of the Regulations of the Treasury Department (Customs Regulations, 1892, 402), and has heretofore been considered by the court upon the demurrer of the defendants to the plaintiff’s original petition (32 C. Cls. R., 572). The demurrer having been sustained, leave was given to the plaintiff to amend, and upon the amended petition and the proof taken since the first presentation of the cause, the issues are now to be finally considered.

The findings establish that the claimant was an inspector of customs at San Francisco, Cal., and that in the month of September, 1891, he was on duty at one of the railroad stations at that port, delivering designated packages of imported goods to draymen to be taken to the appraiser’s office, and in delivering other packages of imported merchandise to importers upon presentation of duty-paid permits. At and before the time mentioned Neuberger, Reiss & Co., a firm doing business at the port, was under suspicion of defrauding the revenues by false invoices. Some time in July 1891, the special agent of the Treasury Department on duty at the custom-house of the port was informed by the head of that branch of the customs service that members of the suspected firm were selling-imported goods at rates indicating fraud, and that it would be well to watch the imports of the firm with a view of detecting the frauds. Other importing firms at the port had also imparted their suspicions of the firm to the special agent on duty at the custom-house. Thereupon this officer instructed one Murray, an inspector who had been assigned to duty in his office a short time before, to keep a special watch over the importations of the suspected firm. In September Murray wrote the letter to the special agent of the Treasury Department at the custom-house set forth in Finding I, and in October following Murray made a formal report to the special agent of the circumstances connected with the seizure of the goods of Neuberger, Reiss & Co., which led to the collection of a large sum of money in behalf of the Government.

The claimant’s action in the matter is comprised in the statement that on or about September 20, 1891, Neuberger, Reiss & Co. presented to him duty-paid permits from the collector of customs for the delivery of 32 cases of imported goods, which cases of goods were at that time in the custody of the claimant as inspector of customs at one of the railroad depots, and that two days thereafter he delivered all the cases designated in the permits to the drayman of the firm, except one, which the drayman would not receive because it was broken and in bad condition. On the forenoon of September 22,1891, Inspector Murray, acting upon the instructions of Special Agent Evans (which were to scrutinize closety" the importation of certain merchandise, and particularly those of the suspected firm), visited the railroad station, as he had noticed by looking over some railroad manifests that 18 cases of goods bearing the mark of Neuberger, Reiss & Co. had been entered duty-paid the previous day. When he arrived at the station he met the claimant, and Murray told him there had been some complaints at the custom-house about Neuberger, Reiss & Co., and that “if he kept his eye open he might find something to his (claimant’s) advantage.” Murray did not himself examine the broken case of goods, but started for the dock, directing the officer in charge of the case of goods to open the same and examine its contents after the railroad employees had quit work. Murray then proceeded to the dock.

When the drayman of the firm declined to receive the broken case claimant ordered a laborer at the depot to bring it near the office where it could be fixed. The case was accordingly removed near the office, and was there before Murray arrived, remaining in its broken condition until half past 3 o’clock in the afternoon of September 22,1891. After-Murray’s departure claimant examined the case and discovered that it contained woolen goods instead of the cotton goods indicated by the invoice entry at the custom-house. When the chief inspector came to the railroad depot from the custom-bouse it was decided between bim and claimant that tbe goods should be taken to the custom-house the next morning, which was done. ■ The discovery of the fraud resulting from the direction of Inspector Murray to claimant to examine th§ contents of the case of goods was then reported to the surveyor and collector of the port, and attention directed to the 22 cases of merchandise imported by Neuberger, Reiss & Co. A few days thereafter other cases of goods of later importation by that firm were seized by order of the collector, and a number of them were found to contain smuggled goods. Seizures followed, resulting in a criminal prosecution of the firm, a compromise of the proceedings, pursuant to section 8469 of the Revised Statutes, and the payment of $70,000 and a fine of $5,000 by the firm to the United States.

The amended petition alleges a right to recover the 35 per cent promised by the customs regulations of the Treasury Department, which percentage of the penalty imposed on the firm committing the frauds makes the claim aggregate $24,500.

When this cause was before the court on demurrer we held that—

“Mere rumor did not lead the plaintiff to the broken case of goods. There were rumors, it is true, that several importing firms were avoiding the payment of legal duties by substitution or otherwise, and these rumors assumed the form of general belief in the community so far as Neuberger, Reiss & Co. were concerned. If, without the intervention of the visiting inspector, Murray, thé rumors had been acted upon by the plaintiff, or if the inspector had merely communicated these rumors prevailing in commercial circles and elsewhere, that frauds against the revenues had been committed, without information as to what frauds had been committed, and had failed to furnish some clew to their detection, and plaintiff had detected the frauds and seized the goods, then and in that event he would be entitled to compensation.”

For the plaintiff it is contended that the inspector, Murray, was not specialty charged with any duty pertaining to importation of merchandise; that he merely communicated general rumors that frauds against the revenues had been committed; that he gave no information as to what they were, and did not know even how they were done, supposing that it was by exchange or substitution of packages in the warehouse, which did not appear to be the mode actually adopted by the guilty parties in committing the frauds, and that under these circumstances claimant is entitled to recover.

Eor the defendants it is urged that the findings make a stronger case against claimant than that set forth in the opinion of the court, heretofore rendered on demurrer to the original petition.

That public policy amply sanctions the offer of rewards to officers of the United States for special vigilance in the detection and punishment of crime is too well established to be questioned. (United States v. Matthews, 173 U. S. R., 381.) It is also true that the offer of a portion of penalties to collectors is to stimulate and reward their zeal and industry in detecting fradulent attempts to evade the payment of taxes and duties. (Dorsheimer v. United States, 7 Wall., 166, 173.) But these cases merely establish the principle that officers are not excluded in proper cases from claiming rewards under statutes providing for the payment of rewards generally in the detection of crime. There are some things, however, which officers must do regardless of rewards. They must not neglect their plain duty, or shut their eyes to any violation of law while oharged with the obligation of having others conform to such of its requirements as must be enforced by ordinary vigilance. Everything imposed upon an official in the discharge of his duty must be done in good faith without reference to extra compensation in the shape of rewards and premiums for extraordinary diligence. In the case at bar it appears that Murray imparted information in confidence to the claimant that Neuberger, Reiss & Co. were under the suspicion of smuggling. He suggested to the claimant that it would be a good plan m the case where a box was broken to compare his permit with the contents of the case; that if he, the inspector, were in the claimant’s place, he would examine the particular case then in his hands quietly,,when the men on duty around the railroad station had quit work. It is true the inspector thought, upon comparison of the permits and the special numbers ordered to appraiser’s store, that everything was all right, and it is also true that the inspector did not make the examination of the box himself, but he ordered the examination or gave directions which fairly amounted to the equivalent of a specific order. The examination was the result of the inspector’s visit and directions. Without one or the other, or possibly both, the examination, in all probability, would. never have been made. It became the claimant’s duty to examine and even open any package of imported merchandise in his custody where there was a suspicion of smuggling by the importers of such packages. It is fairly inferable from the findings that claimant would not have examined the package — which led to the discovery of the larger frauds — if the case in' his charge had not been broken. It would be inequitable to the Government, in whose employ the claimant was, to permit him to recover upon his accidental possession of a broken case of goods and his examination of its contents after being told by his superior officer that the owners of the goods were suspected of smuggling and that the case containing the goods should be privately examined before delivery to the smugglers;

The petition is dismissed.