The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-08-20

feuetts seriously on our character; and although
We veff told by you on calling, to-day, that "there
no imputaiion on us''-but that '.the whole nd
rafrem system was a fraud"-we still deem IT adj
visable 10 show in the transaction quoted, that our
hands were clean from corruption, and that the
facts furnithed 10 the commissioner of customs,
(enirey ca payfe as they are,) when sitted, only
show exactly what was stated by MIR. Mckibbin,
viz that if Little. Alden " Co. paid the prices
they quote for The quality of shawls i'm
ported by us, they paid than the market price
al the time of our shipment The New York APP
praisers are not SO uDskIlled as TO fail in dis
covering whether shawl is worth Us or 2Ss.
Taking for granted though, notwithstanding, that
the shawls were the same, and that the prices diff
feIed stated, il seems strange that the report
omits mention OF the date Of Little, Alden Dc Co.'s
first purchase. The time, as we will hereafter
show, IS most important, owing to the rapid fall OF
the article. Our ahawls wee shipped from Glas-
gov, about 18th September. 1915, and arrived too
late of course, for the best silk trade, and we sup.
pose some weeks after Little, Alden X Co.'s first
shipment. They arrived in Boston, and not in New
York, as implied in the report. They were APP
praised in Boston with all care, regularly passed
and forwarded TO us by the Custom House authori-
ties there. in due course. Our next shipment was
to New York, and the result Of its appraisement
here stated in the report wiz that the
goods were fairly invoiced. Now, shawl is an
article the value of which depends much on the
fashion and demand of the day, that its market
value lucuates more than almost any other article
imported. Independent OF this, however, 1t will
be difficult for the Commissioner OF Customs, with
get at the truth, to convince the merchants OF the
United States that Godfrey Pattisen ~ Co. have
ever defrauded the revenue any more than Messrs
Little, Alden n Co. We have done business with
most Of them TO heavy extent for the last thirty
years, and we proud to record that during all
that time-with very large imports every year-we
have never had but one invoice charged by the
appraisers being under invoiced. That invoice
was signed, and on our bringing the matter be-
fore Congress- a bill was passed through the House
OF Representatives, renting the penalty; we hav-
ing proved TO the committee that the appraisers
were mistaken.
We repeat again, that taking the vamped-up
statement made by the Commits sionor, or Little,
Alden ~ Co, as correct, there seems to be good
deal wanting; and We think the Commissioner
should have insisted on extracting the Information
we mean the date of Little, Alden & Co.'S first
purchase or coriract; and without this we can ar
rive at no conclusion. The Commissioner should
also, in courtesy, have called for information
previous TO publishing our names. We never heard
of the gentleman, or his visit" until we saw the
Secretary OF the Treasury's Report We would
notice further, that the Commissioner does not in
qure into the facts of Little, Alden IL Co 5 Sc
cond shipment Of the same shswis." Ii does not
appear from The report that the same prices were
paid by them for the second were paid for the
hrst shipment What are the facts? Our impress
sion is, that the second lot was invoiced and APP
praised al less than the first shipment; although
this would drive Little, Alden " Co. into the d.
lemma of either copessing that the statement that
'they were both DESTROYS and obligated to take in
that this second shipment OF theirs was fraudu-
lently under-invoiced The former seems the more
likely horn Of the dilemma for the public 10 place
them on, inasmucb il is difficult TO conceive
Messrs. RosbuTgh's motive in giving us shawls at
30 per cent less than Little, Alden n Co. were
both DESTROYS and obligated to take in any guam
hty." Whatever We're the facts, however, the
commissioner should have investigated the point
searchiDgiy. 1t was denty inconvenient to in
quire or publish the actual prices of the second
shipment.
So much for the carelessness of the report-care-
lessness that renders the report quite useless for
the establishment Of any fact save the truism that
sbawls, as well as other merchandise, fuctuate in
value. II the ad yaorem system is TO be overhrown,
so soon II is proved that goods rise and fall in
value in the foreign market, we may consider its
downfall certain. Its warmest advocates admit the
fact; and in order 10 prove il, there is need to
direct public attention TO particular names, either to
j. &. Howe IL Co. or ourselves
All that require new 10 do, is TO submit evil
dence 10 prove
First, That we paid market value for the goods
in question and that market value was the price
entered and passed at the Boston and New York
custom houses after full examination by both Bos-
tor and New York appraisers.
To prove this we submit affidavit (marked Az,
by one OF the firH Of Messrs. Roxburgh, OF Pals
ley, most respectable merchants, corroborated by
the affidavit tmurkcd -, of Robert Duke, who
packed the shawls IN two cases, marked l. 5, Nos.
l and 2.
Second, That, so far from desiring concealment,
we courted, both in Boston and New York, the
most rigid inquiry.
On this pon. see our letter (marked CO address
ed to Hon. Collector Morton, at Boston, at tho
time of these occurrences. Mr.. Morton promptly
performed his duty to our ample qualification The
shawls in question, however were before Collector
Lawrence, the Deputy Collector, and were ham
died by three OF four appraisers; and il Mr.. Nc
kibbin asserted that the shawl was too dear at
As, We are the more convinced Of his skill in
valaipg woollens. Mr.. Chaiterton has been an ap-
praiser for YEAR,, and has handled many woollen
shawls.
Third; We shall prove that longshawls declined
rapidly and very greatly in value in Great Britain,
during the fall OF 1915.
We submit the affidavit of Mr.. Henry Smart,
(marked D) referring to thsse identical shawls Of
Roxburgh's make, who proves that he purchased
the 35s. shaws for US in London at It's. The his
tory Of this purchase is given below. We call at
tenton also to the affidavit (E) Of Mr.. Andrew
Wingate, Of the highly respectable firm OF VIM
gate, Son g. Co., Glasgow, house well known
and universally esteemed by all respectable import
ers visiting that city.
information, however, of concerned, and to show
the gronndlessness Of the assertion in the report
that the New York appraisers are less strict than
those in Boston. we annex the history Of the case
X PIT No. i, containing AZ longshawls, as con-
tanned in the letter marked F. addressed by W. to
Peter 7. Homer, Eco, Boston, and DESERVED in
Mr. Smsrt's affidavit MS being Roxburgh's 35s. and
imported by us into Boston, and passed at that price
by the Boston appraisers This was perhaps 30
per cent lower than the same goods were passed at
in New York, the same year. IL IL no proof, how
ever, that the Boston appraisers either knaves
or fools. only showing the great decline in tho
article.
In conclusion, we would remark that the Com
missioner has been unfortunate in his selection Of
our case, among others, as an example TO support
his assertion that some American merchants would
be driven from importing altogether, inssmuch as
we ourselves have abandoned the importing, after
having oied a, il for thirty years, and after paving
into the treasury some three millions Of dollars
duties, and retiring with less capital, undoubtedly,
than We would have amaseed IN almost any cash
business pursued with as much industry. The
merchants who assure the commissioner Of the
foreigners frauds, not only, on the other hand,
show no symptoms Of being driven from the busi-
In Boston, but several Of them have actually,
during the last two or three years, established
branches in New York, and have increased their
business. II they insist drawing the conclusion
that under the nd raimep system, none but those
who defrsud government can make profit, they
are welcome TO do 90. We will certainly not be