Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-10-13
REVENUE CASE.
Vat. mt.

A case was tried in the District Court of the U.
States at Boston, on the 9th instant at the suit
Of the government, against MessrS Leavitt IL
Rowland OF this city The defendants had i'm
ported large quantities of lead in the form OF
busts on which duties were claimed by the U.
States for lead, but which the defendants resist
ed on the ground that they were entitled TO eX-
emption under the act OF Congress Of 1882,
which provides, that "all buss of marble, me
tal or plaster, shall be imported into the Unit
ed States free Of Duty"
Mr. Dunlap, the District Attorney, supported
the prosecution on two grounds. lSt, that these
eaden busts were imported, not for the purpo-
ses of taste or science, but 10 be manufactured
by the defendants into white lead at their eStab-
lishment in Brooklyn, n. Y, and consequently
that the giving to lead the form Of busts was a
mere evasion, which could not, in law, protect
them from the amount Of duty payable on the
imported lead Cd. That Congress had never
ntended that lead should be thus imported
they had lately discovered the " leak" in the for
mer act, and had, at the last session, passed
another act prohibiting the admission of busts
unless they could be proved to be double the
value of the metal of which they were compos-
ed. This, Mr.. ID. designated as declaratory Of
the law as it previously stood.
Mr.. Webster, for the defendants, maintained
that the law imposed duty of three cents per
h. upon "lead in pigs bars, or sheets"--and
that the onuS Of the case was on the U. States,
to bring these busts within that description, and
that the simple question was whether these
articles 1.-THE busts) were were not pigs
bars or sheets Of leads Certainly they were
not He had no desire to see the laws evaded
and he performed his share of duty elsewhere
in supplying the defect which existed in relation
to the importation of lead. There was, how
ever, a fatal omission in the act of '32, I'M
der which these busts had been imported-a
"leak" as the counsel for the government had
termed it, and such being the case, the defen-
dants i'm the present instance could not be cal
led upon to pay the duty. As TO the law passed
by Congress during last session, that had moth
ing to do with the present case. No law could
operate retrospectiyey. All new laws looked
to the future and not to the past and the very fact
of Congress having amended the law of '32,
proved the existence of the defect and omis-
sion which had led to the importation of the ar
ticle in question. He (Nr. W. thought it better
now that the leak in the act of '32 had been
stopped-now that no further evil could accrue
that the revenue should suffer in this single
instance, rather than that forced construction
should be put upon the law in order to procure
a conviction.
After reply from Mr. Dunlap his Honor
Judge Davis addressed the jury in an able
charge, in the course Of which he alluded to a
former decision in relation to sugar. The duty
on loaf sugar, he said, had been fixed at very
high rate; but was eluded in many cases by the
introduction Of the article in pounded state
The government claimed the duty, but the
Court, notwithstanding the pounded sugar was
superior to the best American loaf sugar that
could be obtained, decided that it was mol loaf
sugar. and therefore not subject to duty.
The Jury after some delberation, gave it as
their opinion, "that the articles in question were
leaden busts and consequently free from duty.
~ y. Com.