Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-06-17
R0HTTIGAEa

MunVdcturer's Contention The ioiis " ing article
from The Warrington Telegraph 4, a ccmplete answer
70 some OF the Io2'e staten en's contained in The II por,
OF a Committee Of the late Manufacturers Convention,
oil which Peter III. S:henck was chairman. L, appears
from tn $ answer, " which we judge from lie terms to have
been furnished from high %au,ho'i'y, ,hs, bu, a single
c,se mas happened 10 which the penalties have been re-
United Tor the naturalization OF Imported goods since
the act oil May, 1880. wentiu edeet-that The circum.
stances OF this case were sucb, that TO have insisted Oh
ne PensIties would probably have en- fruitless, and
that they were 6ualy co injured tor a double duty on
tue goods. Yet the manufacturer rep ri has The hatdi-
hood TO speak OF the rsmi s on Of duties a. a thing Of
ordinary occurrence with The Sscre,a'y Il the Treasu.
ryan assertion, as II now appear nit rly untrue ard
unsupported by facts. The severity wi h which the
.rpot' Is treated In the subjoio1 article, 10 therefore
July meriitd. A, TO the author Of the wsnton calumDy
whom the committee are called on 10 disclose, we pre-.
.ume tnete can he DO question. The repor, IL doubt
less the product n of The chairman, or made up ftom
his information, IL would be, we are eonyisced, M.
just in the highest degree to several highly respectable
gen iemen whose name. were on the committee appoint
ed Tor the purpose oil making the repor, TO suppose tina,
they were otherwise than misled by all undue conf.
dence In the statements made y them.
Frauds on the Reveiue.-TOe CIDven'ion'o o. Dele.
gates at New-Yo'k, appointed by persons i,iere s,ed in
the growth aud manufacture Of wool ,bave recently pub
ii.h- ID " report on the u tj-ct OF alledged frauts on the
revenue. Amor G various oh. r matter, the re port cori
tains the following paragraph
Another cause Of the frauds on the revenue, 10
such a large amount, Is believed to have arisen, in some
measure, from the manner in which the Secretary Of
the Treasury has used the discr ton given him by
law, 10 remi, the penalties Tor undervaluator when he
Is OF opinion tina, no fraud was Intended. U.dsr this
provision, in cases Of seizure Of goods on account OF their
appearing TO be hse.y invoiced, he has, at the clamor-
Gus import mites OF The parties interes ed, generally
ordered item to be given up TO the importer, on biz
Plying a duty on a high value. This IL, in effect, If.
i-tiDg a premium on attempts 70 de- and the revenue,
since the greatest irducement lie hereby given to the
importer TO undsIvalar. Ii The fraud be not detected,
he evades a part OF the du'y;i il be detected, he is on.
~ compelled TO pay the anne duty as il he had made an
honest entry. A Practice OF reBi ing the penalty, ex
cep' IN es'e oil evident mistake, is an exercise, or ra-
me. abuse OF this di crs,iOn given to the Secretary,
that takes away from the Collector and oficer. of the
Gus ON the stron ges, incentive of .red by the law 10 vi
glance in the detection Of frauds, by allowing TO them
a share in the forl,i,uree. The cops- onepce of sueh
an adminisira,i, IN Of the law nndee hi, provision, mus,
necessarily be a laxity and indifference on the Par, of
The revenue officers in enforcing the law; loss o. reve.
nue. on the par. of the Governments; loss Of the fSrf l.
tnres which may have been incurred, aud TO which the
Government aud the eff cers Of The customs are Iy-
gahy en'i'l'c; and on the part Of the manufacturer and
domestic producer, a loss Of that protection which the
law intt nded TO give to their industry. Accordingly,
Tor the purpose Of preventing these evs.ions of the laws,
so destrucive to some Of our most important nation ii
interests, and injurious to all, aud 10 aid, as far a. NAV
be, the o1 .eTs OF the Gover.msat In the faithful DIS
charge OF their duty, your committee propose for the
confederation OF the Convention the resolutions here.
with submiited."
Having made inquiries q, the Treasury Department
ior The foundation, II there were any, for this heavy
charge, we are authorised TO safe the following facts,
III hat there has been bot one remis. ion made by
tue Secretary It he Treasury in a case of undsryalua.
ton since the act Of May, 1880, went into effect; and
u III tudt Case are as fOliOWB - Seven cases o.
wooiien goods were consigned BY Jabez Stead TO s ipds,
Spooner, s Co two ,f these cases were passed by the
Appraisers as correct, and FIVE were seized under the
act oil May, 1880, on suspision OF fraud for undertake.
alton; the claimants petiionsd The District Judge for a
SUMMARY hearing, under the act OF 1877, for the re-
mission OF hines and fVrfeitures notice was served on
the Di'Iitt A torney ard C,llec or, bat neitaer Of
than attended; h., whole examination was there 10 -r
ex Parie. The District Judge certified The prcceedpes
TO ,he Secretary OF the Treasury; Of WHOSE opinion,
the following ex ract will show The result:
L ne invoice was found - sorrs spond nearly. il not
exactly, with the appraized vaiue, in all the piece,
where the value OF ZACH piece was carried GU, by Itself,
OUT "hep several pieces were added into one quantity
OF yards, end an AVERAGE charged upon the amount
ma average was found 100 low. For instance. case M
iiE' containing 502 IA yards, invoiced at GO, wa,
iouni TO contain bui 90 3.4 yards, valued GO the re-
mainier OF the case was appraised at from 73 10 SO
per yard.
"Ii however, APPEAR, that the aggregate Of the an.
praisemen' only differs about 6 per cent. from the ae-
gregAts oil the invoice and IL is very fully proved by
reputable nerehanis, conversani with ,he trade, hat
aNy TWO OF the best Judges would o di iariiy differ from
. 10 ~ per cent. In their estimate OF he cos; aud value
oil "oCllen good; and that, on an average, they would
no agree within 10 per cent in iheir esiima G Of The
cost OF such goods in England.
'ltis proved that the owner, MIR Slea d. ha, been
sx'en'ivsiy engaged in the expectation Of goods from
England to his country for several years that he i. a
man Of lar cf,srae'er and respectable s~.anting; and ,ha,
no invoice OF his has before ever been suhiect to doub,
or suspicion. Upon these facts it il respectfully sub.
United to the decision OF the honorable Secretary OF the
treasury TO decide whether any lr.nd was designed
upon Tue revenue, or any intent IN existed to avoid
the payment Of tue duties ehargsable upon these
good,."
Thiscase was thus presented TO The Tieasury, neither
me District Attorney nor the Collector spps sripg 10 e,-
tabhsh the fraud, aud the statement Of the Judge, that
me increased valuation was less than six per cent, evil
IDENTIFY indicating his opinion that no fraud was intended.
lhe secretary might have well opposed thai The charge
oil fraud had been aoSnloned by the Colisclor, and IL
he had Temii,ed the allie ged forfeiture, the documents
De ore him would have justified the proceedings. But,
insiedd OF relying on the opiuion OF the Judge, or on
the presumed Abandonment Of the case by he Colec-
tor, he wrote 10 the Collector a letter, eDguiaDg how
" barpenei that no evidence ad besn sddueed
beiote the Judge to establish the fraud alles.
on! The District Attorney happ ,uing to be M
Washington about The zane time, his attention
was specially callsd TO the fact that the estimate
ceIiined by the judge, Of 8 per eehl advance on the in.
voice Oy the aPIrsisement, was The result oil an aver.
age on Inc whole oil the pieces, as well those found
correctly iDvCiced az thoie under valued. The C1llse.
TORS answer shows bis attention had tbsn 5eeon5 AVA
ReDeu 10 ms and other circumstances; but The letter
ti tie District A torDty discouraged the hops tina, a
condemnation could be effected. liz said, " from what
i nave eeen, i do not believe that a jury can be found
to condemn the cloth" The s cretary Of The TreasG.
~ perceived that II the goods should not be condemned,
Tie claimant would no, only escape his forfeiture, but
the cost; and Knowing tina, " a heavy forfeiture v. 70
exacted, the claimant might refuse to pay h and abide
the tial, and The evidence Of the fraud be ns only pre-.
suuPiiYe, be exacted a forfeiture OF such amount as 10
hisyud6mebi would bs likely to correct The procedure
IN she mosis Ell ctual manner, whatever q isbt have hefn
the intention OF the parties. The uodtfyalued goods
we're charged with about double the amount OF duty
which they were ] able TO und.r tbs invoice value, viz.
S2,83l Instead OF 81 ,l60, sGd viii $3.50 forfeiture,
pesld $ tosis. This being The oliy case where q re-
mission has tex Il n place, The public will Judge how far
y may be considered az "oh ring a premium co s.
Temps 10 dsraud The revenue" and with what ius lee
and ruth the 10 .~psclatls Convention bave alleged tina,
"ihe manner Ia watch the Secretary ofthe Tcsssury v, has
used the oisereiion given him by law 70 remit The pc.