The New York herald., 1849-06-12
Dutics on sugar and Mol.sses.

Duties Sugar and Moissses
rEi1TD srArfs clRcun Hr-pisrricr OF MARYLAND.
r. ". B,rsne & Sons y. Wn H. Mrrr,,t E,o-rhe
following is abridged port of cause decided in
ths Unitsd states iIcut court OF the prict of "a
Dland II originally app ared in the Baltimore ame-
,con, of tie ed II May last, from which IT. is now
abridged. The decision ia this will be- found to
bc imporfaG to merchants ali parts
Of the uon, who are engaged ia importing sugar and
nolosscs. The facts seem to DO ~ toiiows:--The
plaintiffs "a and previous To ls57, imported several
eargoor Of these articles TO Batim.re and upon unlsd
ing IL found that considerable loss had been sus
tanned by l'atase &c, during the voyage that the
quantity uay received asc~rtained and certea
10 by the proper coer in several cargocs far be-
low what stated in the invoices. The defendant
who is, or wac, the collector OF Baltimore notwith-
standing Insisted under Instructions from the Frsas
ry department, that duties on tho invoices shoxld be
paid The p!antns accordingly psid The duties un-
der proterr and brought their muoh
CT the money PAID that portion OF the sar
goes which Wa, lost on the voyage by leakage, &c.
OPINION
The question arises upon the proviso in the Sth
ton Of the act q 1856 which declares that under
circumstances, shall the duty be assessed upon
amount lees than tue invoice value ANY law Of Con-
gress to the contrary Notwithstanding The question
is whether tins proyiso includes the quantity we'll
rs the price value OF the merchandise mentioned
in the invoice The cIansc is certainly not free fron
circular letter Of instructions to the collectors
dated Nov. rs ls4B, took notice o. this difficulty and
expressed his opinion that 1t did repeal the prev
Gus Law, which authorized allowances for deficiencies
and for damages occurring during the voyage
The same opinion Is more partcuiariy stated in
his letter Of January 80 lS4 to the Collector OF the
port of New Orleans and the instructions given In
this letter would apply directly to cases like the one
now before us, and sanction the claim made by the
plaintiffs. This instruction was, however after
recalled and, IL seems, not afterwards acted upon
Nor are We able discover. from tho correspondence
before us the construction finally placed upon this
proyiso by the department. to ascertain prcsiely
the classes cases to which supposed to extend
to which IL supposed not TO apply; We think
the construction first given ~ above mentioned the
true and that it not the intention OF the act Of
1916 TO annul the previous laws upon that subsst.
The principles Of justice would seom To require that
the merchant should be charged with duty only
the merchandise which he actually Introduces In
to the country lie imports nothing more, and
bripgs in nothing tor sale or Tor consumption
lie could prolsct himself by insurance. for ordinary
leakage and damage in articles which from their na
ture liable to such casualties without paying pra-
MUM heavier perhaps than the amount OF loss ~
It. we believe, OF the hazards usually If ever un
aertaken by the underwriters. And II the duty ~
charged upon what lost well as what arrives he
win in fact pay in almost every case higher duty on
hs importation than the law intends to impose And
the pro, would be inconsistent With the other pro-
visions and with the spirit Of the tariff OF S46 II ~
be construed exact such duties; tor this law is
avswesy framed the most liberal principles Of
merce and contemplate u reduction OF duties upon
articles OF this description to lower standard 1t
would hardly conport with this policy to place In ths
law pro'iss which, upon articles 40 Important IN
commerce sugar and molasses would in many
make the duties higher than they had ever been be-
fore--an indscd in almost every cargo, make them
higher than the rate specified In the law We think
the provso refers to the price stated in the Invoice and
not the quantity and did not repeal the former laws
authorizing resuctoDs and allowances to the Importer
IN the cases mentioned There is another dhc culty,
however in he case, since VI the previous laws
gar or moa'ses by leakage the voysge nor does
II appear that the Treasury Department have formed
sDy aetnitc oppien ON this particular question, or
established any settled uniform rule the subject;
for and upon examining the correspondence and
instructions Of the department., have already
tnid that different Instructions given At different
| timer, and finally order given to make the
| allowance on nosss.s. but not on sugar We do not
see how from the OF this law any pre- yious
act Of Congress this distinction be made for the
clause in relation to liquors IN the law of 1899 chap
o. sec 90 vol G72 can hardly be construed to en-
| lr W m ar
under the act Of ls4l wherever the duty ad
loren, IL was charged only upon the merchandise
tusiy imported or brought in for the 10Th section,
which regulates the manner of afcertaiuing aud
charging tho ad valorem duties, directs the ap-
power to ascertain the value in the foreign market,
| and to chaIge the duty upon that value They
not confined in any to the invoice and conse-
qucnty, ii she goods actually imported fo,ad
be OF lees value Than the prce stated in the invoice,
the duties were chsrgeablc only the value
tained by the appraisers; and whether this dimnu-
toD III value WAS occasoncd by damage to the quality
on the voyage; or loss IN quantity, could make df
ference Tor the appraisers aud appraised only the
goods received ana imported into the country, and it
the value Of these goods which they req ured
to arpIaise and upon which the duty to be
ted, and not upon merchandise which stated in
The invoice hut had not been actually brought in
The construction Of the 10th tecon Of the act OF 1912
il cophImod by the 2lst section in the same law,
which expressly provides that where any deficiency in
the quantity mentioned in The invoice fund in any
package the importer Is be allowed for it iu estimate
ing the duties 1t is true that the language in which
this provition IL made would to make it appca-
that any distinction intended To be drawn between
dry goods ana goceries that rule deemed just as
TO one, would have been denied to the other the
contrary 1t elbows that Congress intended impose the
duty only upon the merchandise imported, aud that
the construction have given TO the 10th section u
the one which Congress intended 1t should receive
Now this appears TO have been the policy Of the go
yernment, unto. miy manifested before the tariff
Of ls4C, do not think that the provision in relation
10 the Invoice value could have been intended to
change 1t. different construction would make the
iaw not only unjust in its principles, but would in
multitude OF cases be likely to enhance the duties
tngar aud moasses above the tariff Of 1892 instead Of
reducing them. The language of the prosiso does
require fUch construction, and would be opposed
To the general egtatOn Of Congress, and espe-
ciaiy TO the general scope aud policy OF the Of
Congress in which IL is found. Upon the whole the
court IL OF opinion that the plaintiffs eottied
for The amount of the deficiency the sugar
| and molssses by leakage, mentioned in the case
stated that the reduction ought to be made accord
ing to the dutisbe value OF the portion lost and that
the protest o Apr 9th, 1851 all cafgoes where
the sutes had not before been finally assessed and I'D
justed by the collector.
| AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY. This society