The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-09-13

q being disuisutsd 10 any oiasss = the custom;
the act Of 1s42 It is insisted ho.e'er, In answer 70
this that the prsssat tariff act which WAS passed ZONE
Ave months sesssause uy 50 REPEALED TINS s, ?.
snt provision y relation to the additional duty
and that this third lecon of the act Of February II ne
this question Of distbu lion the tariff act Of 1se stands
upon the same footing that of 1872 before the pas
sEs q the act o. the sn ~ ny opinion rss.sd to-
Without pursuing the the present MO ION further
may say that the real state Of the case tAis:-rnat
since the act of down TO that Of the 11th Feb
ruary ls46 period Of some twenty eight years, these
additional duties impoed upon the importers for false
distributed among the officers meotiensd either BY the
tariff acts in terms, or by reference to the act OF 1892
The act OF 1th February 1916 declared that these add
of the OF 1872 should be desmed penalties for tho
purpose Of this distribution, and directed them TO be
paid into the treasury. and for the hst time cut of the
distribution among these officers and II can DO con.
srued applicable to the present tariff act there is OF
course. question In the But If the views
sufficient to take it out of the prohibtCry law
Of the 18th February then it is not from
from the act Of ls42 according to the practical con-
struction given to that act mai ltanabe the officers
entitled to the distribution under the present act,
and Of of the fund in question There is another
view presented BY the counsel for conpanants that DE-
notice. The seventy fifth section Of the act Of
1899 provides that drawback of duties prescr bed
BY law shall be above and paid on all goods imported
into this country in respect to such within twelve
months after ment of the duties shall be exported to
any foreign port &C. The question has frequently arisen
cues imposed the try of the goods account OF
the false invoice should be refunded the exporta
by the importer that they conetituted portion Of
duties paid at the entry in pursuance Of law The claim,
1t understood has been uniformly denied by the gov
errnelt en- the ground. as t would seem from the
treasury cusr tina. these additional duties to be
regarded In the patuie Of penalties and not duties and
uch has also been tie opinion Of the courts before
W
essDe definite opinion upon the main and
question involved IN the csse are satisfied that
he presented by the ccmainsnts affords rsAsona
Bile grounds for our interpositeu, under the crcun-
stances to conoin the fund, and withhold the DISPOSE
top Of under the order of the Secretary OF the
~ until the ANAL hearing the compapants are right
they have equitable il not specific interest in the
fnrd set apart the defendant and entitled
il preserved TO abide the final Judgment of the court
That the question is not free from difficulty and worthy
Of the most deliberate consideration BY the Court ad
clifton to the views here presented need only refer
the conflict of opinions between the distinguished officers
OF the government whose duty has been to examine It,
S ,a ns .ss here
fund be brought into court and safely kept by the clerk
under its directions, to abias the determination Of the
The United States Henry Rugg,es This bill is filed to
to epoin the defendant from filing up AMI obstructing
the waters of the East river adjacent and front OF
the Navy Yard Brooklyn By the construction Of docks
and wharves thereby mpairng the navigation Of said
river ard the free sccess 10 ard from SAID Navy Yard
by the hps ard vegels of the United States and thus
sno objects Of the said yard The defendant sets up
grant nom the Commissioners Of the Land Office Of
Office sth If July 1854 This Grant purports 10 ys,
the deter dhnt with authority to erect any docks that
SHAH De necessary to promote the the state
upon lands under water the East river par
cuary described therein and to collect from persons
rsng sad cks and accustomed docksge to
be regulated BY Aw-with condition that unless the
premises thus granted shall be appropriated for he
poses OF commerce by the construction of docks aud the
filing up of the within five wears the snail
be void The defendant is the Sner Of certan lands
situate the margin Of tho river adjoining IA the
westerly or soush~estery boundary of the Nsyy Yard
and the grant purports have been fur the urv
lege to build docks and wharvss in the said river
to and il front of HE lot But according boundary
given n the grant, charged Ia the bill and not csneS
considerable portion of the LAID thus covered with
water and embraced wit hin the boundaries Is rot ada
cent TO il front Of the DEFENDANTS lot but extend to
and embraces Land under water Ia front OF the NAVY
Yard The statute Of New York copfsrriDg the powers
upon he Commissioners to make the grant is as fol
lows -
The Commissioners Of the Land Office shall have power to
gf sra in o. othsrIis 50 much Of the lands
deem to Promote the Of this
zane by the sdaeent owner but no sp gan th ne
made TO any person ether than the proprietor the Ada
tar eS1or Sa Se vod 'na' 'hA De made TO any
The cond section provides that tie powers conferred
OF tie Commissioners OF the Land Office By the rst sec
ton of this act are hereby extended IA lands yndsr
ter between high ana low water IN aud adjacent
tc sud surrounding Iobg leland c but grant made
under acl extend hey ond any psransat * erior
eater line established by law and nothing csntaintd
lands under water belonging 10 the corporation Of she
q heT York TO interfere with any property rights
rar chgt OF The same. (Sess L. New York, 1850 62l
One question that must arise in this Will be What
IL the tue construction o. the prOl oitory clause in
lie frat lection ely "but such grant shall be
Sde to any person other than the proprietor OF the ads
cent lancs" As nc understand tbis clause the Coo
aonsrs possess power to make grants lands uuder
water 10 river LAKE, in front oil al adjacent owner
whose lands bound upon the nargn il must be conned
10 thoEe lying In front OF the Land belonging the app
cant or grantee The general rule applied In analogous
49,
pTopretors bounding the margin of The stres 10
start II the Of their lots st the agn Of
the river In this way tie rparisn rights OF each pro-
prietor v be protected by securing to him ha enjoy.
ment CT the water front There exceptions to tie
rule, in cases where the lands lie upon either side Of
the send OF river the application of it In adjusting
the water rights in frost would obviously work injustice
This understand is the practical construction given to
the act by the Commissioners Of The Land Ocs and the
one that has been followed Stree the conferred
a. far as known, which was far back 1901 Nv. X
and z I'd Laws p. 299 Indeed do not perceive Aoy
the terms and intention Of the law be carried into
effect any other construction Another import ant
question arising in this case and which viii require the
most careful deliberate investigation is whether or
not the erection OF the docks and wharves question win
not have the effect even constructed in front Of the de-
fendantt land with grant IN conformity 10 the rule we
have stated to obtruc the navigation Of the river in
front Of the Navy Yard and thereby eDbsrrs IL ot des
troy the free srd from The to the sps md
vessels Of the United States Gud thus render comDara
lively useless the immense expenditure Of the govern
ent st this place for the public interest This alleged
81
such magnitude and public importanceso far ct asst
as concerns this great national es,aoishmen1e think
the defendant should be restrained from entering rpon
the construction OF docks and wharves In the re under
tire grant until there is opportunity for full and
thorough Investigation Of the subject There are some
Dinor questons in the which discussed on the
argument but 1t iE not material TO notice them on this
preliminary motion. The two questions have already
referred TO involved IN the sufficient require
the interference Of The Court this stage OF tho
ngs ard shall therefore direct injunction to be is
sued enoning the defendant from the docks
rho
prayer Of the BIZ.
John u. Wendell oga. Bonls d Could've are OF
opinion that each of the counts In the declaration are
bad within he of Backus Gould ct al q How
Sup Ct r. 1851 Il there decided that, according to
the true conjunction or the sixth section Of the copy
right act Of 1881 the penalty Of fifty On each sheet
vas p 60 to sheets in the possession Of the
and eio not apply 70 sheets pIiated published o. ex
posed to sale, whether hey found IN the defendants
possesEfon not Now, each CT the counts ia the
declaration close With the claim to demand and have
Of the said David Banks and Anthony Gould ae Of
fifty cents for every sbeet printed publ he'd had "a
possessop either printed printing exposed t. sls
and fold by them amounting the whole 10 as C0Du