The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-07

~,
Committee on Finance
Ia regard fund collected rnder the act Of the Sd
OF March, lsas. consider il equally just TO pay over
10 the Stale government II, when that act passed,
government had been established in California by which
ME- liberty and property would have been protected, no
one would have objected TO the execution OF the law.
But the effort 10 establish system OF government
and tins act passed for the osensbe reason that
was necessary to protect the of the United States
on the Atlantic as well the Pacific coast The
great principle OF taxation without representation
brought this government "a blessing to mankind) into
existence; and this principle should Be kept nvioate in
our legislation 1t is to carry it out that ask for the
payment Of this fund to California. But If does
exist, il would be just and proper to make this dsposi
eminent into operation. As / have before sisted, we
have had OF the benefits OF appropriations made
from the national treasury TO erect public buildings
make and improve highways and develop the resources
oil the country The territorial pupilage through which
every other State has passed. has been denied 10
and we have been forced into State organization at
tended with great and extraordinary expenses 1t Is
therefore proper. upon every principle that should
lexslaon that both OF these funds should be
paid ovsI sr to The, The STATE Of California 81;
orna is to have this large tnndthe amount OF which
We do not know which has bssn collected al duties on
OF that State have listened to the argument by which
the senator has endeavored to sustain his proposition;
and what is in
First that there was no authority of law for the col
lection OF duties in California between the date of the
treaty OF peace and the appearance Of collector at that
port the llth OF November lsia That is true and
took 10 explain the provisions OF the bill There
authority OF law for the collection of duties during that
PERIOD could there be any proper authority for col
lecting duties until Congress should act
But that was not the only want of law which applies
to the BY the general revenue system OF the Uni
ted States. which applies as well 10 the Territories as to
the Staies-whch applies to Territories commonly
acquired without any express statutes making revenue
laws applicable hem-no goods be imported into
any port OF the United States except into collection dis
tric they be unladed except at port Of entry
or delivery That Is general law and as soon as Cali
fornla became part of the United States that general
revenue law OF the United States applied :here as well
as everywhere else. presume it will hardly be denied
that the laws of the United Statesso far at least,
they could bewere applicable in California well
elsewhere. suppose II would have been illegal in Cali
ornia to counterfeit coin OF the United States There
be doubt therefore, that that general provision OF
the law which prohibits the introduction OF goods from
foreign places into any places within the United States
unless be port OF entry delivery, applies to Caor
MIA Just well as il does anywhere else admit that
this part Of the law operated with hardship upon those
people. They could not, without violation OF law, import
goods California, and unlade them within that Terri
tory. 3#
Mr. GWIN, (interposing) Will the senator permit me
to ask question How does he interpret these decisions
OF the Supreme Court! Z
Mr. PEARCE | am coming TO that directly am
perfectly familiar with those decisions #
The general revenue laws cannot be mistaken. They
are extensive; they sweeping. No goods can be un
aded any port of the United States, unless in port
OF entry delivery and whoever violates the law is
subject TO forfeiture OF his goods They liable 10
be seized by an officer It is true there was no custom
house officer to receive them, aud II the military had not
taken the law into their own hands would have beea
violated but il would not have been less a violation OF
law because there was to enforce the law. These
merchants therefore, who imported goods into Calitor,
MIA, and who were allowed to unlade them and sell
them Tor the consumption OF the country suffered IN iact
hardship because they did On the contrary. they
derived benefit IRON the which thus asserted
by the military authorities OF the United States for they
could legally have entered their goods at all They
could have sold them, and loss and ruin would have
the consequence That loss and ruin were aveed by
officers Of the United States admit ali that But now
observe that these duties were paid-not legally, ad
mitbu they were paid and two propositions are before
the Congress OF the United States There petitions
from merchants who paid these duties, calling
refund them. What is our repy' 1t is This: "You do
not come before us with clean hands You have violated
the law OF the Union You took goods into this place.
which was not port OF entry and your goods were
consequently liable to seizure. Blu, your goods were
not seized. The authorities chose to assume the au-
der der the general revenue laws Of the United States,
and you have the benefit of that assumption OF au-
ihority, illegal as II was" These merchants have
of obligation on our part to pay them. But il was a
hard case nasmuch the Legislation of Congress had
left them unprovded with collection district or a col
ecto and, being hard case the Committee Finance
willing TO extend relief TO them and II is this bill
which egazes nqw may say the action OF the author
tiles at that time which Of course relieves these mer
chants from the penalties TO which they would be other
wise liable. But these memorials are pending and not
only memorials pending. but suits instituted
/ understand some OF these merchants have Instituted
SUITS which will be brought up to the Supreme Court for
adjudication and they shall say, after the legislation OF
Congress- that they entitled to back these du
ties thus paid to the United States shall have pay
them anybody is to recover back these duties, II is
the merchants What right has California to them
What possible claim has She The senator says these
people received the amount Of their duties back from the
consumer of their goods, suppose may say techni
cay that is But, in point of fact, il duties had
been paid upon these goods the prices OF them would
have been lowered TO the individuals who consumed
! them. The prices were enormously high-ont of all
because there extraordinary demand for them that
they dear and take that the prices would not
have varied arthing If there had been duties exaced
at all heard that the prices of articles that
entered without paying duties in California were lower
than those upon which duties were paid The senator
from Massachusetts Mr.. DAval says, what is
very true. that, il we should 20 TO the strict propriety OF
the matter, under the theory OF the senator from Cali
orna these duties ought be Teurnd to the
of the goods-a thing which could never be got at
/ But the senator from California asks me how recon
ce the doctrine have stated with the decision OF the
Supreme Court in the case Of Fleming & Pate, ! will
tell hun. That case had singular object and il was
this During the occupation OF Tampco by the forces Of
the United States duties collected military con-
tribuons. Well, some persons alleged that bein
within the occupation Of United States. il was not for
egn port, but port Of the United States and goo1s
without the payment OF duties Well, the court de-
cded that although II was so far in possession OF the
United States to exclude all foreign nations from
coming in there, and impose upon their commerce such
provisions they pleased, 1t was not domestic port
within the meaning Of the revenue act OF Congress-
a foreign port and the OF il that Con.
ess had not made il collection district, and had APP
pointed no collector there That is all. domestic
port be created except by act OF Congress- and the
object OF the decision was 10 show that the coasting