The daily union., 1856-01-12

should appear that the estimate erroneous the
would be 50 far restated to make il conform TO the
amount actually received by him. His for COM
pensaIon was then stated thus Fro the 81 April ls49
being more than months before be arrived San
Frapesco until the 4h February s5o he was credited
the rate Of $4,000 per year, being The maximum eou
pensadon provided by the act Of 7h May 1922 and he
was charged with the fees received from November 10Th
February 4h at the rate Of S3s9s per month From
February l4h being the date of the resolution removing
the restriction OF law salaries 2sth September fol-
lowing being months and fourteen days. he al
lowed retain all the fees received credited with
commission all moneys received, amounting, at per
cent TO ssoss So from the 2sh September 1885, when
Congress acted upon the subject of salaries in California
restriction of law ceased he left the Office
the 14th Of january 1881, he was charged with the
fees at the rate and credited the
$4,000 per year. tina, being the salary provided for the
collector of San Francisco in that act
The claim for moieiy Of the seized liquors was
founded upon the 9lst section of the act Of I'd March,
l799 which provides shat all 6nes penalties and fore
lures received by Of this act SHALL after dsducing
all proper and charges be disposed of follows
moiey for tho of the United States the other to
the collector"
The seth section Of the same act provides that all PEN
ae accrung by any breach of this shall be sued for
and recovered with costs Of suit in any competent
to try the same" BY the act Of Sd March, ls49, the
competent try these the United States
district OF Lousan and the supreme court of Ore
gon In failing TO prosecute them in either Of these courts
assuming sell the seized merchandise without due
process Of law it decided by the Commissioner Of Gus
that portion Of the proceeds could be lawfully
taned by the collector In consequence Of this violation
Of law the part of Collier, the power TO remit 6nes
penalties and fortues conferred the Secretary of
the Treasury by the Of Sd March, l797 when in his
opinion the shall have been incurred without wilfu
negligence any intention of fraud rendered wholly
nugaory That the seizures under which this claim for
moiety Of the proceeds urged by Collier Of the
description referred in this act is abundany established
by the action of the Treasury Department and Of Com
gress The Secretary had been Invested of the power
nit by the failure of Collier to pursue the pointed
out by the law and upon his recommendation provision
inserted in the 4th section of the of September
2sh 1885, by which the Secretary Of the Treasury
empowered when any ships vessels any goods wares
and merchandise may have been subjected seizure conf
cation detention by any officer of the in the dis
tic of Upper California Oregon and it shall be made
appear the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treas
ury that the Of any such ships vessels the
importers Of any such goods and merchandise,
have sustained damage loss by of any improper
seizure con6scaton detention thereof the Secretary of
the Treasury authorized to extend such reef in the
specve cases as he may deem just and proper
Under the authority of this act the Secretary of the
Treasury has reimbursed to the of vessels i'm
properly seized by Collier and the owners Of the goods
and merchandise Improperly SEIZED confssatea dined
by him. including the identical liquors for the moety Of
which the claim under consideration is made their
whole estimated value amounting in the aggregate to the
sum of S3O4, $50 90.
As the collector had failed to comply with the require
of law he not entitled TO any share of the pro-
ceeds, if any remained and II he entitled there
proceeds left after e. reimbursement authorized
by Congress- fund out Of which be could be paid
The of Messrs Dickinson and Collier CONVEYS
the impression that this provision of law applicable
only the French vessels improperly seized by Collier and
authorized Reimbursement only in of "imroper sez
m" To arrive this conclusion II is necessary to mis-
state the facts and mulae the words of the act itself
BY the terms of the act restitution be made in all
of improper seizure eoscao detention by any
officer Of the customs and because the liquors In question
improperly confscated the Secretary was bound
to make restitution that large portion of this enor-
charge upon the treasury clearly and ndsputa
bly, caused by the arbitrary and illegal proceedings under
which these liquors cofscaed The claim Of $l2 200
being moiety Of the OF bonds taken for vessels
seized and afterwards released disaowed for the rea
that money into the treasury or was
in any way collected from them there no proceed, out
of which said moiety could be paid
The of s140oo-being for collectors moiey Of ad
ditona duties exacted under the Of August 80 Is42
and July 30, ls46was disallowed being penalty
to which officers OF the customs entitled 10 distrbu-
tive share which construction has since been sustained
by Judgment in the Supreme Court Of the United States
in the case OF Ring 1t al, ps, Maxwell
The claim for the credit of s04ss 7e-beng the amount
alleged to have been stolen from the deputy collector at
Montereywas not allowed by the accounting officers or
the Secretary for the that power existed in the
department make allowance for such losses withou,
srecial authority flaw.
We have thus given concise history Of this case as
the multitude Of principles involved and the voumnous
documents which they are spread would permit.
We satisfied that no injustice to Mr. Collier has been
intended by the officers Of the treasury that while they
have not affected be wiser than the law assumed the
power give withhold further than the law would war
rant they have but performed their duty In subjecnQ
the charges and claims Of Mr. Collier to ius,
and in main fha -