The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-07


thfow the business OF importation into his hands Sir
10 show that l am not singular in this opinion beg
leave to read an extract from Mr.. Walkers circular in
relation 10 lhis matter In laying down his exposition
OF the law which he thought required goods TO be valued
IN The same manner the first section of this
provides and IN arguing against this other system which
he says:
We're IL otherwise, the law would prescribe two kinds
OF market values the the first part of the IOth ec
ton being the date of the purchase and The other in The
proviso being the date oi shipment The mos.
frauds also wond he the consequence Of
suit the period price, would prevail extensyey
70 he great injury OF The fair trader and OF the
would soon be thrown into he hand. of be and
fraud nleni, who would be willing produce anedated
ios!gn sales and that most useful and merorions
citze, the honest and air trader, would be thrown
tirey out OF the market II Is known At pressntas
the are not dseasd by Se pals. suduen
the person designing to import into the United States goes
poation into The United States a. some o. ior date when
the goods much lower value and the goods
s sro "sms 3, q pss ns % sxs
the OF the difference value and obtains most
unjust advantage the fair trader who viii 10 no
that such practice Is fraud upon the and sub
committing the fraud 10 all the penalties prescribed by
law and the utmost igance enloned upon ctors
appraisers and all oher officers Of The customs in taking
all proper detect and punish all ho are en-
gagged In such fraudulent practices" I"
know is the opinion of the present Secretary OF the
Treasury that these views, taken by Mr. Walker re-
gard TO the probable effects OF establishing such mode
OF valuation as that now proposed, were correct The
Secretary believes that unless pass this bill there
will be ruin TO the best interests OF the revenue and that
It will be almost impossible without the law
fairly But this is not the only difficulty produced by
overriding The circular OF which | have been speaking
According TO the act of 1898 goods purchased elsewhere
than the place OF importation be valued according
to their price at the place OF purchase at the time Of i'm
portaiion Need comment upon the intrinsic difficulty
oi such mode of valuation
hnl n~f. t,.ck
additional amendment necessary the bill which has
been reported by the Committee on Finance The Su.
pIeme Court have decided that it is the duty of the ap
prasers themselves to examine and apprase goods and
personally TO inspect them In doing they have made
ii absolutely impossible with the present corps OF Of
cers that the goods be appraised and inspected with
ing the present practice and according the unboken
usage, as understand, OF the department for time
past (ever since the act OF May 30 ls30 the appraisers
appoint clerks called "examneT s'-Inen who are skilled
in the examination of particular articles One examines
silks another cottons another woolens, &c.. and when
this examination is brought in, the appraisers certify to
it, and that il the certificate OF apprasement which has
been heretofore taken evidence OF the value, and
which the amendment now proposed will deem 10 be
sufficient Is anything TO be gained by requiring the APP
prasers personally inspect the goods Nothing that
can see II the appraiser were 10 inspect all the goods
personally, 1t is impossible that his opinion could be
reliable that of the examiners amongst whom these
duties parceed out account OF their special skill
and knowledge oil the subject. To show the necessity
OF such amendment that OF which speak, may
refer to Judge Woodbury. himself. who delivered the
opinion OF The Supreme Court in Greeiy vs Thompson
and Forman, and who, having been himself eminent
head OF the Treasury Department, was familiar with the
working OF our revenue system. He said:
III officer. enough to perform thess public duties do
exist more shond be authorized ther duties
anime person shonld be dispensed with by OF
Cong PIess I"
II would be much better il seems to me, to dispense
posed by amendment which shall presently offer,
than 10 increase the number Of officers So much for that
portion OF the amendment which relaies to the in
which the foreign valuation is TO be taken.
There is another section, which provides for the ap-
pontment Of four at large is provided that
this board OF appraisers al large shall execute such du
ties OF appasement the Secretary OF the Treasury may
direct II is also provided that OF them may 20
such port the SECRETARY OF the Treasury may desg
nate. and there, in conjunction with merchant APP
Of goods Heretofore these cases Of appe have been
tried by two merchant appraisers; and when they diff
feIed, the collector TO decide For the purpose OF
giving uniformity TO the system between port and port
and for the purpose Of correcting frauds from false in
voices and under valuations il is believed that change
this extent in the system OF apprasement will operate
benefcally secure, TO great degree fair
ton OF our revenue laws. and give uniformity IN iis opera
uon between port and port
And here, Mr.. President, let me say--and | think
should say It'll justice TO the character OF our merchants
in justice to this law OF ls4e-iha think great misap
prehension exists in relation to the frauds which
said be committed the revenue by false invoices
believe they have been greatly exaggeraed-not BY de
sign, but by mistake When come TO look at the sta
stcs OF the case, and the very facts upon which the
Secretary OF the Treasury relies to draw the conclusion
OF fraud, when look at the nature OF our ystem OF
appaisemens, IL would seem to be impossible that there
could have been this large amount OF frauds from false
invoices and under Valuations In the fret place, let us
look to system and wha, penalies be encounters
and how difficult is for the merchant to deceive TO any
very great extent He has 10 10 his invoices; and
II evidence produced OF false invoice, not only ~ he
deemed guilty of perjury but he loses the goods and
the officers share part OF the forfeiture they will be
stany the alert TO detect every attempt at fraud In
the second place. these appraisers examine the invoices
and thew compare the invoice price with the foreign prce
at the ports from which the goods come, and II they md
the foreign price than ten per cent above the I'M
port price, the merchant importing them oreiis twenty
per cent addition to the duty which he will have to
pay Bun this is no, all The collector, if he suspects
that the individual acting fraudulenty may levy the
duty in kind that IT, II II rs twenty per cent duty, he
may take twenty out OF every hundred and sell
them for the benefit OF the government
When look 10 the history OF legislation, we see
conclusive evidence that the system OF apprasemeni has
been improving and increasing in efficiency. We see
some of the strongest and most ndIspuabe marks o the
greater accuracy which experience has given to our
methods OF apprasement Under the act OF 1923 was
provided that Il the difference between the appraised
value and the invoice price more than twenty yfve
was at that day supposed that II the difference between
the appraised value and the invoice price tweny hve
Der re there clear evidence OF fraud But within
that rate the law presumed he might be innocent In
1912 this limit was reduced (perbaps II was reduced
sooner but do not now recollect any earlier provision
To this effect and difference OF than ten per cent
was considered an evidence OF fraud This shows the
greater degree OF accuracy which the appraisers had &C
aired from long habit and experience, II shows the
greater approach to perfection OF the system; It shows
how small margin left for error in this respect and
how small is the lnducement 10 fraud since the probable
Ilv hoo "a cnt