The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-08-08
From the Philadelphia Bulletin.
Important Lawsuit.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.-Flening and
Marshall VS.. james Page, Coliscior.-This action is
brought by the plaintiffs merchants residing in the
city Of Philadelphia against the defendant the col.
ector OF the port of Philadelphia, TO recover back
the sum of $l,529 duties paid under protest on
goods imported per schooner Catharine, from Tam
pco, while il in the military occupation of the
forces of the United States.
Tampico was taken possession of by Commo-
dore Common on the 18th of November 1886, and
from that time until the evacuation OF 1t by our
troops after the treaty opened of May l64S, it was
garrsoned by American troops, and remained in
possession Of the forces of the United States. A
custom-house was established in Tampico, and
collector appointed.
On the 18th December 1885, the schooner Catha.
rine, owned by American citizens, was chartered by
the plaintiffs for voyage to Tampco and home,
and cleared coastwise from Philadelphia for Tam
pico on the 18th of December, 1886 She brought
back return cargo to Philadelphia of hides, fustic,
sarsaparlo, vanilla, and aap, the property of the
plaintiffs under coasting manifest, signed by Mr..
Chase, the collector at Tampico, and dated The 18th
of February, l847. These goods were passed
through the custom-house in Philadelphia free of
duty, the deputy collector not concelving that they
were liable to duty. The schooner Catharine
cleared again coastwise for Tampico on the 18th OF
March, 1s47, and brought back return cargo of
similar merchandise, the property Of the plaintiffs,
in June, lS47 Mr.. Walker, the Secretary of the
Treasury, having, in the mean time, been informed
Of the entry Of the goods the first voyage free Of
duty, and considering this to have been OH
the part of the officers Of the customs in Philadel-
phia, instructed the defendant not to permit any
new cargo that might arrive from Tampco, belong
ing to the plaintiffs to be entered unless the duties
on the former voyage were also paid. Under these
instructions the defendant refused to permit the
goods imported the second voyage to be entered,
unless the duties on them, and also on the goods
imported on the first voyage, were paid. The
plaintiffs paid the duties under protest, and this
lion was brought to recover them back, with inte-
rest from the time Of payment
The case was tried on the LIST of May last, before
Mr. Justice Grier. There was no dispute about
the facts, and the question was one purely Of law,
viz. whether Tampico, while in the occupation Of
troops Of the United States, was a foreign port.
The plaintiffs contended that, under the law Of
nations the conquered territory became the proper
ty of the United Staies-that, by conquest the
sovereignty changed, and that there remained
only latent shadowy sovereignty in Mexico
while in the possession of the United States. That
it was American territory, subject only to be d.
vested by recapture or cesson on treaty of peace.
1t was contended further that the Instructions of
the Secretary Of the Treasury, Of the Both June,
1876, to the collector, &c, showed that ports or
places IN Mexico in the actual possession of the
forces of the United States we're regarded as do
mestC, ana mol as lofciSn pofts under the revenue
laws.
Judge Grier was Of opinion on the question Of
law with the plaintiffs. He instructed the Jury
that Tampico was not, under the circumstances,
foreign port, and that the plaintiffs entitled to
recover. The jury, under his instructions, found
verdict for the plaintiffs for Sl,707 80. A mo-
ton was made for new trial, and the following
reasons were fled
REASONS FOR A New TRIAL.-First. That the
learned Judge erred in charging the jury that in the
year lS47, Tampico was not portion OF a foreign
country within the meaning Of the LIST section of
the act OF the Congress Of the United States passed
July 30, 1916, entitled can act reducing the duty
on imports, and for other purposes"
Second. That the learned Judge erred in charg-
ing the jury that, in the year lS47, Tamp'co was
so far under the dominion Of the United States that
goods, wares, and merchandise imported from that
port into Philadelphia, in March and June OF that
year, were not subject to the payment Of duties.
Third. That the learned Judge erred in charging
the jury that upon the facts in evidence, the PLAIN
tiff was entitled to verdict for the amount of du
ties paid under protest on the 18th June, l847, on
merchandise imported IN the schooner Catharine,
from Tamplco, into the port Of Philadelphia, in
March and June, l647
Peter M'Csll appears for the plaintiff, and Rev
erdy Johnson, the Attorney General Of the u. s.,
and John w. Ashmead, district attorney for the
u. s., for Col. Page, the collector. The case is
said to involve ~ principle about t5,000,000,
though the amount IN controversy, 1t will be seen,
! is less than $1,000.