The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1846-08-29
The Past---The Present.


Crittenden in tho Senate that Mr. Cluy's pref
erence was based upon the condition that the
duties should be imposed on home valuation
and not foreign valuation, under which IN
Vulnerable frauds were perpetrated, insists IN
reply that the duties imposed by the new Tar
iff Act nre based upon Il home valuation, ana
then affects an unwonted graduation at the
discovery that Mr. Clny's great name is thus
made to sanction the principle of the new law.
1t even accuses us ofquibbling in insisting as
we did on the condition above. The quotation
is altogether premature and the charge OF
qubbing rests upon its own head. That and
all other Locofoco papers which maintain that
the act of 1876 satisfied the condition on which
Mr. Clay expressed his preference of nd valo-
rem duties, are laboring under a mistake in
this matter or they are attempting deception
upon their readers, and which alternative is
true is not matter of any particular impor-
lance to u.s. We leave them to settle it with
their readers as best they can.
In point of fact neither the act of 1876 nor
that of 1942, nor any previous Tariff Law of
our Government imposes duties on home
valuation, except in one case and then the
law was repealed before it took effect.
All alike with some slight variations arising
from the infusion under certain circumstances
of other elements than the foreign cost, pro-
coed upon the value of the goods at the Port
whence imported, at the ports and markets
generally in the country whence imported or
in the country where grown or manufactured
In every instance the foreign value is the sole
or principal test in afixing the dnties.
BY the Act ofApril 30, 1S1s,the ad valorem
rate of duty was estimated by adding to the
actual cost 90 per cent. if imported beyond the
Cape of Good Hope, and 10 per cent ifimport-
ed from any other place. This Act also re-
quired the owner, consignec, &c to swear that
the invoice produced by him exhibited the
true value ofthc goods at the place whence
imported. To guard against frauds however,
the Act further provided that if the Collector
shall have Just grounds to suspect that the
goods have been invoiced below their true
value at the place where imported, he should
cause them to be appraised by duly appointed
appraisers who were under oath diligently 81
faithfully to inspect and examine such goods,
&c. :, as the Collector may direct, and truly re-
port to the best of their knowledge and belief
the true value thereof when purchased, at the
place or places from whence imported.
Another Act of the same date directed 10
per cent to he added to the duties on certain
articles of manufacture, when imported in
Foreign vessels The Tariff Act of 1924 con-
tinued the same rule of Oscertaining values
without alteration. That of 1923 did the
same, but introduced several new guards a
guinst fraud
It required the Collector in all cases when
duties were to he assessed I'D p0iorcm to
cause the goods to be appraised, without any
regard TO his suspicious as to the correctness
of the invoice, at their actual value at Tie time
purchased and place whencc imported, and this
value the appraisers were directed to ascertain
by all the reasonable ways and means in their
power without regard to the invoice and nc
companying oath, and in case such appraised
value exceeded the invoice value by 10 per
cent there was to be an addition of 80 per cent.
to the duties imposed by the act
In May 1880, some new regulations were
adopted respecting the appraisal of goods, the
principal of which were that board of assist
ant appraisers was constituted by whom goods
were first to be appraised, g. this appraisal was
to be revised and corrected by the principal
appraisers, and if the Collector was still dissnt-
isfed he might ordera re-appraisal. Also that
in case the owners, &c. should consider the
appraisal too high he might appeal to the Col
lector and having made oath that the appraise-
ment was higher than the actual cost and prop
er charges, and us he believes higher than the
correct value at the place ofexportation, then
the Collector and owner might agree on mer-
chants skilled in the value of such goods who
were to make new appraisal and reportit to
the Collector and if it differed from the U. S.
appraisers, the Collector was to decide between
| them.
On the 18th of July 1882, an Act was pass
ed introducing a new element into the dutiable
value of goods imported. 1t required that to
the actual cost or value abroad should be add
ed all other charges except insurance.
March 2, 1888, the celebrated Compromise
Act was passed which introduced sliding
scale of duties which was to terminate in June,
| 1S42, at 20 per cent as maximum.
In this Act is to be found the first and only
provision in our Revenue code for assessing
the dutiable value of imported goods accord
ing to the actual value at the place of entry.
But this new regulation was not to take
place until after the Both of June, 1912, and
then under such regulations as should be pre-
scriJed by Lao. No such regulations were
ever prescribed, and no duties were ever as
sessed on that principle, In little more than
one month from the time indicated the Com
promise Act was swept out of existence, and