Polynesian., 1851-06-07
From the Journal OF Commerce

Mr. HUNTERS BILL.-In the cases OF N. IL.
& G. Griswold against Hugh Maxwell, Col
lector at New York, and Thompson and
Foreman against H. Greely, Collector at
Boston, the Supreme court of the United
States have unanimously decided,
lst. That under the Tariff laws Of 1923
1880, 1882, 1912, and 1916, merchandise is
to be appraised at the time when purchased
or procured. and not when shipped.
2nd. That additions made under the Sth
section of the Tariff of 1916 to avoid penal
ties and get possession of goods, are compul-
sorry and involuntary, and, if protested, can
be recovered back by suit.
Sd. That under the Tariff Of 1S42 and
1916, penalties can be exacted only on pur-
chased goods, and not on goods consigned
on producers and manufacturers account.
4th That if all the appraisers do net
make a personal examination of goods as
required by their oath Of office, nc penalty
can be exacted.
5th That the removal of a merchant
appraiser is illegal, as his duty is judicial and
not merely ministerial.
9th. That the Instructions Of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury 90 not justify the Col
lector in making illegal exactions, nor pro-
tect him from suit by the importer.
9TH. That the invoice and oath of the fair
importer are the best test Of the value of
goods.
To deprive the Importers of the benefit OF
these decisions Of the Supreme Court, a-bill
has been introduced and passed by the Sc
to work great injustice.
And it is to be regretted that the bill as
originally introduced by Mr. Winthrop has
not been changed sufficiently to produce a
thorough alteration of the Tariff Of 1916,
and to introduce either the principal of Home
Valuation, or of specific duties; especially
as the substitute is calculated to favor the
designs of foreign manufacturers.
The Foreign Manufacturer will. under
this law, invoice his goods without regard TO
their intrinsic value, and will not be subject
to any penalty or forfeiture for SO doing,
while the American Merchant residing at
home and purchasing goods through his
Agent abroad at the far prices in foreign
markets, will still be compelled, under the
laws of 1899, 1923, 1880, 1912, &lS46, to
produce the invoice of the actual price he
has paid, and for an increase in the foreign
market prices between the time of his pur-
chase, and time of shipment, is subject to in
dctment for perjury in swearing to false
invoice; will have penalty Of 20 per cent
on the appraised value extorted for the rise
in prices in the foreign market,-and will
have to abandon the ruinous competition with
unnaturalized agents Of foreign manufaetur-
ers, who must ultimately secure permanent
ascendancy over our citizens, no matter what
talent and industry the latter employ to Sc
cure purchasers at the lowest market prices
abroad.
More especially will the commerce with
remote countries, such as China, India, Chill
and the Islands of the Pacific, be seriously
affected by this Act, because the difference
in the foreign market prices, with the exemp-
tion from duty on freight, constitutes the only
profit on such i,nportations. In truth, it is
worse than folly to require an invoice which
under this new Act is to be wholly disregard
ed in appraising the foreign value of goods,
while il makes the importers oath on entry
useless Formally, serving only to draw
down on his integrity the imPutation OF per-
Jury and the forfeiture of his estate.
This bill can serve no useful purpose. ex-
cept it be to destroy all reliance on invoices,
however verified, and by whomsoever pro-
duced; and thus, in time, may substitute tor
the ad valorem system, the more simple and
perfect operation of specific duties.