Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-10-01
CHARLESTON, SEPT. %, 1891 AIV INTRI

The United States l This case came on for tri-
 vs. al yesterday in the District Isaac E. Holmes, Court of the United States, Alexander Mazyck, Ss before Judge LEE. As we Thomas Gddsden. understand the points Tn s- --- sue, they are as follows:
 Mir HOLMES imported two packages of Goods from England and gave bonds to the Collector of this port for the amount of duties accruing on said Goods, and on which bonds Messrs MAZYcK and GADsDEN securities. The defendants all members of the Charleston Bar, and it is understood the impor- taon was made especially for the purpose of bring ing the question of the constuonality of the Tariff before Judge. and with this view, the payment of the bond was refused. The mode pointed out by the laws of the United States for the collection of Bonds given for Duties, and which has heretofore been invariably practiced by the Courts, is that when the District Attorney is directed to sue Bond the judge is bound to give judgement in favor of the U. States at the first term of the Court unless the ma kers of the Bond make oath that the calculations of the amount for which the Bond is given is incorrect
 copy of which oath, and the facts must be furnish ed the District Attorney, when the judge may defer the matter to the next term of the Court; at which term the Judge is required to give judgement, ad- hitting refusing the alteration of the amount. as justice may require. The defendants in this case contend that the Law of the United States requiring this summary process, Is unconstitutional nasmuch as the Constitution of the United States guarantees that citizen shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without trial by jury.
 On the other hand, it is contended that in most other countries the duties importatons are paya- ble in cash, but that in the United States the govern ment, designing to favor Commerce gives credit of the amount of duties, of from six to eighteen months, free of interest, which amount is in fact pa 9 h n aen % Inc o s enable I h time to make the government secure in the ultimate payment of the duties, Congress passed law sle- cilyng the mode of coercing payment, in case the importer fails to pay the bond when it becomes due These conditions of the law, it is contended, ba- part of the contract in the bond, and view ed as equivalent 10 the credit on the duties These conditions are made manifest by the fact that it is discretionary with the Collector to give the credit or if he believes the bonds will not be paid at maturity he may demand the cash for the amount of duties Even in this latter case the paterna regard of he Government for commerce IS preserved, for the par ties, who, for want of character, required to pay their duties in cash, are placed on almost an equality with those who obtain the credit by being allowed certain rate of interest for the payment thus made in cash It was therefore, on these points the argu- ment probably hinged.
 The court crowded, that we were unable to get within hearing of the speakers; but understand that the argument on both sides was very ably supported and we hope to be able to give some report of it hereafter The case was sustained by ROBERT B. GILcHRIsT, Esq. District Attorney, and JAMES l.. PETGRU, Esq. for the United States, and JAMES G. HOLMES and GEORGE MDuFFlE. Esqrs. for the Defendants. The court opened at 10 o'clock, and the argument closed at about o'clock when the Court adjourned. We understand the Judge will give his opinion to-day at l2 o'clock Courier.