Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-01-12
whether upon that state Of facts, the law was for the

whether upon that state Of facts, the law was for the
S. or for the defendants
II appeared from the case agreed that the Collector
caused The appraisement Of the cargo 10 be made IN con
nrmty with instructions received by him from the
Treasury Department, contained in three circular ie'
lers of the 23d and 25.h June, and lst July, lcaS.
The decision of the question thus presented 10 'ne
Court necessarily depended upon the construction %
be given 10 The provisions of the act OF Congress- aP
proved the Cd March, 1885, usually called the "Com'
promise Act" BY the Grs section Of that act al du
lies upon foreign imports reduced to twenty PEI
centum ad yalorem from, and after the 30th june le4~
The third section Of the act provides, that "irom aho
after the 30h day OF June, lS42 the duties required 10
be paid by law on goods wares and merchandise, sha
be assessed upon the value thereof at the port where
the shall be entered under such regulations as
may be prescribed by law.
Ii was argued in behalf OF the U. s., that the latter
clause of the Sd section did not require further legsla
ton in order 10 give efficacy the act utter the 3oh
June. 1912 but that until Congress prescribed other
regulations it The duty of the collectors in the as
sessment of duties to be governed by former laws, as
nod,f by the Compromise Act or by such resuia-
tons as the Secretary of the Treasury might prescribe
under the powers vested in him by former acts, and
particularly by the 9th section Of The collection act OF
lie 18th July, 1882. The position was also tuken tina,
The net Of March, 1888 having fixed the rate OF duty
at 20 per cent on The value of the IMPORTS the power
of prescribing in what manner that value should be
appraised ought be regarded as necessary incident
TO the ripnt To deinano the
power had been given by former acts TO The Secretary
of the Treasury TO whose department The collection OF
The re venue from imports is entrusted by law. Other
portions of the act Of March, 1885, were referred TO
and examined for the purpose of showing that could
not have been the intention Of Congress to leave the
subject Of duties after the Both Jnne, 1912, dependent
upon future legislation but that il was the object OF
that act to establish, in connection with former acts IN
pari maeria, system complete in ITSELF and not rely
ing, regard 10 any of its provisions upon The cont'n'
gency of future enactmcnls by Congress.
The foregoing positions were srenuously resisted by
the counsel for the defendants who in an able argument
endeavored 10 satisfy the Court, both from The Prov.
sons Of the Compromise act ITSELF which ne scrunzed
minulely, and from the history OF The law, and crcun-
stances connected with IFS passage, that Congress did
no, intend 10 provide by that act for the collection OF
duties after The Both June, 1912, but designed to
the matter, subsequent TO that PERIOD TO future
legislation; and that in the absence of such legislation,
there was lawful authority TO require the payment
of duties merchandise imported after the date above
mentioned.
The Court having taken days TO consider the
questions presented by the agreed and discussed al
the bar decided that the law in favor Of the U. s.,
and directed Judgment to be entered for the amount
of duties claimed by hem viz twenty per centum upon
The value Of The cargo appraised at this port; the
duties amounted to about Sll00 This is the first case,
believe in which the question above stated, has been
judically decided
Counsel for the U. S.-R c. Nicholas, Esq. District
Attorney.
Counsel for the observation-disclosures A. Seldom, Esq.
[Rirhmond Compiler, jan 8.