The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-02-05

the compensation Of collectors 70 S6 900 per annu
that Of naval officers To 5000, and surveyors 70
s4,3UO. The act referred TO required collectors,
naval officers, and surveyors 10 make quarter yearly
accounts Of al suns received eollecied by them
for tines penalties, foeltu es, for seizure OF goods
on suis ms iiued for frauds, DC II the sums 90
received by the COLLECTOR amounted 70 more than
81 600, he required 70 pay the excess into the
treasury; SO that this maximum compensation
should not exceed $4,000. Bot in the clause re-
curing this payment into the treasury, "fnes pen
allies, and forellures" were not enumerated So
that he continued to receive under the construction
given TO the law, one-sixth OF the whole amount
derived from seizures. The naval officer and sur.
yeyor also received their respective sixth parts and
their compensation was proporIionsbly increased
teyond the aximum fixed Jy the act OF 1871, He
| would now call the attention ofsenaiors 10 printed
report on their hles, showing the amount OF com
pensation resolved by collectors al the principal Of
ices ofthe customs I64l when the act referred
~ passed. He alluded TO the letter OF the Seere,a-
j ~ Of the Treasury, IN answer resolution Of the
other house. This document showed that single
collector had received in eleven months ard
i some days nearly SIS 1000 Another collector had
received IN three years and about four months more
i than $4,000. He would not stop to enumerae all
L the instances Of exorbitsnt allowances; they were
not confined 10 collectors. lie had another paper,
not Published, which showed that surveyor had
received over 900 in less than year. and he had
ascertaued that during periods not covered by these
Il
officers Of the revenue. He made no complaint
against the officers who had received these exorb-
ant allowances, nor against the proper authorities,
| who had given to the law the construction under
which the allowances were received. No officer is
10 be censured for taking what the law allows him.
And he would add that he believed from the imper-
feet examination he had been able to give to the sub
ject, since the bull was received from the other house.
that the construction given 10 the law in respect
hines, penalties, and forfeiture- was sustained by
fair Interpretation Of lis meaning. What the COM
nittee, by whom he was instructed TO report this
bill, now proposed WAS IN remedy what would, he
uustcu, DC conceded on all hands to be at least a
great defect, aud TO restrict the compensation Of Off
GERS OF the customs 10 the maximum allowed by the
act OF lS4i that is So 900 per annum to collectors
$1,000 to naval officers, and a, 500 to surveyors.
4 Under the provisions OF existing laws in relation
10 hnes penalties, and forfeures "a moiety Of the
sums derived from these sources, distributed TO
the collector, naval officer, and surveyor Of the dis
tic, within which they were incured and the other
moiety paid into the treasury; with provso, that
IN case the SEIZURE made on information the in
former should receive one-balf of the moiety TO be
distributed TO those officers, and the other half d.
yided between them. The bill under consideration
does not ADVOCATE these provisions; though they will
become practically imperative whenever the receipts
Of those officers from other sources amount TO the
maximum compensation allowed them, when the
sums received on account of fnes, penalties and
forfetures will be paid into the treasury.
Having thus briefly stated what were the ex-
isling PROVISIONS OF law, he would proceed to
stale with the same brevity, what were the provi-
sions Of the bill under consideration The 6rst
clause OF the hrs section restricts officers of the
customs who have served for a period less than a
year, TO pro raia Of the maximum compensation
Tor the year; so that the compensation which they
will receive shall bear TO the ximum annual com.
pensation the same proportion that the period OF
service bears TO the year. This clause is designed
to remedy great abuse-that Of allowing officers
who have served part of year, under tempo.
| rary appointment the maximum compensation for
the year, u their fees amount to so much. He be
believed the practice was founded upon a judicial
decision; and he had, therefore, nothing further TO
say IN reference to 1t, excepting that il ought to be
corrected, this clause Of the Bill proposed The
second clause Of the first section restricts officers Of
the customs who have served for any period to the
maximum is not tn be exceeded by receipts from
any source, whether for fees, salary, fines, peru-
Ties, or forfenres, or otherwise. These were the
two provisions Of the first secton and their effect is
70 limit the compensation Of the officers to whom
the bill relates rigidly 10 the maximum allowed by
the act 1871 The second section changes the mode
OF rendering accounts for the salaries of these
officers. BY the existing practice, they are now
rendered at the end Of each quarter of the year,
compencing with the appointment Of each officer;
Tor, in other words, the official year. The object of
section Is to require the accounts be rendered
at the end Of each fiscal year, producing a perfect
uniformity, and corresponding with the periods
liked for the ndition of public accounts. The third
section provided that the additional duties pre-
scribed by the 17fh section Of the act of Goth of
August, 1912, shall not be considered as fines pen
allies, or forfeures, for distribution among the
officers Of the customs. The duties referred TO are
the addition Of SO per cent to the ordinary rates inn
posed when an apPraisement of merchandise ex-
loeeds by ten per centum the invoice value, and
thus are designed to guard against fraudulent in
voices. They certainly could never have been de-
signed as penalties for distribution among the rev.
enue officers though they in the nature of penal
imposnons and the object Of the section is to place
them in the treasury where they belong
He had thus stated the object of the BILL Il was
designed to introduce what he considered salutary
REFORM and he trusted it would receive the sanction
Of the Senate
| Mr.. HUNTINGTON did not intend TO offer any
objection to the passage Of the bill. Some of its
provisions we're certainly very proper, and ought to
become part of the law Of the land. He concur
red with the senator from New York in the opinion
that the mode Of rendering the accounts should be
changed as respected the time prescribed, so as to
have 1t the hscal year, He thought also, with the
senator to whom, he had just alluded that it never
was intended that the additional duty imposed on
imported goods, when the appraised value exceeded
by more than 10 per cent the invoice value should be
divided between the United States and the officers
| Of the customs. 1t was, however, a question, he
readily admitted, open to some difference Of opin.
ION. Ihat duty was undoubtedly Of the nature of a
penalty, operating as such upon the importer Of the
goods to prevent fraudulent invoices. At the same
tune he thought no one who examined the whole
OF the section coad come to any other conclusion
than that tho spirit and object Of the law was to
place in the treasury Of the United States the addi-
tional duty, Al in the case Of additional duty on
goods imported in foreign vessels, though not for
the same reason. That section, therefore, WINS in
his judgment quite proper. The first part Of the
nrst sechon was not open to any objection
IN his opinion. He believed that to be the true
spirit and meaning Of the act of l84l, and
the officers should not be allowed for period of
service less than the year any more than pro rata
COMPENSATION according to the maximum allowed
for the year. The only part of the bin to be CON-
sidered as doubtful in its policy, that which re-
lated to the fines, penalties, and forfeitures. He
agreed that the amount thus received was enor-
NOUS, and ought to be eurtailed. lie was willing
make an experiment in the form Of the BILL to cut