The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-03-19
COMMUNICATIONS.
To ii. Editor Of II. Madi.onian

To the Editor Of the Madisonians
Sir In your paper Of the 9th inst. correspondent
who dates his letter at Boston, says as follows
"The Courier says that Chancellor Kent has given
his opinion agains, the legality Of all the seizures made
in Philadelphia Baltimore and Boston Of woolen
goods in 1889. This is error. Chancellor Kent
has never given an opinion on the subject embracing
seizures at any given port and at all in relation
those seized at Boston The facts relating 10 that
city having been submitted to him, or at least
not made public through the New York Express, the
journal in which his opinions usually appear.
Your correspondent further remarks, that these
goods entered at the Custom House in New
York, and one package out of every invoice sent to
the appraisers for examination. The appraisers ex-
amined the packages sent and found the goods correctly
charged and properly put up, and permit for the
goods granted to the importer to land. After the
merchant received his goods fortunately disco
vered that of the Deputy Collectors had entered
into secret collision lcollusion with the importing
merchant for the purpose Of faudulently entering his
goods II shown in evidence that there were GER
tain heroglyphic marks in the invoice which served as
guide to the Deputy Collector in the selection Of
the package for examination This package, as be-
fore stated, being examined was found properly in
voiced The remaining packages were all inyoiced at
about half their value low priced goods
and not examined, while in fact, they were all
high-priced and should have paid duties accordingly"
In relation to the foregoing extract, it may be o.
marked that there is not single fact stated that has
any applicability TO any one Of the cases now pending
in court. The sole ground Of seizure was merely
allegation that they were undeivalued. The goods
seized were all entered since Mr. Hoyt has been in
office. No charge was ever made or pretended TO be
made, that the goods did not correspond with the in
voice. and not only were they carefully examined by
most experienced appraisers; but am authorized
to say, by of them, that they do not now believe
that any fraud either practsed intended. The
goods appraised and reappraised and the majority
of importers as well official appraiser, agreed that
they fairly charged. In order to test the ques
ton the goods sold publicly in several instances,
and in did they bring any thing like the value,
falling in to sirty per cent under the Gus
tom House appraisement.
No DEPUTY Collector was charged suspected of
any thing of the kind nma,ed by your correspon-
dent nor there any alleged difference in the de-
scrption Of the qualities Of woollens manufactured.
In short in any Of the trials that have taken place
here, not single circumstance has transpred of the
kind mentioned in your paper and for the truth of
this, refer you to any person having any knowledge
whatever Of the cases. to the recorded testimony
before the court.
Much that has an important bearing on these mat
tiers has already the light through the New York
press and il is not improbable that many more facts
will soon be made known. Those who have been be-
hind the curtain and who know most of the facts both
officially and otherwise, believe the seizures to have
been entirely unwarranted, either matter of jus
tice, matter of law. II got up as "specula-
tion the prime in it said to one of his Co
conspirators" who has since become witness. The
whole history of the Custom House in New York has
been characterized by the grossest nquity and fraud
the importers that has marked yrants and y-
ranny A large number Of the officers are no better
than common robbers if we may believe (and think
we can) the best informed Of who at present its
i inmates.