The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-28
wAsHIssros, Feb. q, 1857.

SRs Ia your journal Of this mornine Won have given
room to a long communication of THEMIS against ade-
eisinn Of the Court of Claims The writer of it seems 10
be ofhe opinion that fiscal inquity much better thing
than fiscal equity for surely il is upon better ground
that he contends that If the treasury gets possession Of
money OF an individual by mutual mistake by the
fault Of the government alone The United States may
lawfully regard it just prize. The Court of Claims
think this doctrine dishonest one and have decided
monty thus taken should be restored the owner Az
you have inserted the Treasury argument this subject
trust you viii consider il but of justice insert
the argument for the CITIZEN copy of which have the
\ honor 10 enclose.
desire 10 call your particular attention the fact that
the Supreme Court say, cited In the argument that il
duties should not be exacted goods destroyed by FIRE
after their arrival much should they be exacted
on what was lost destroyed on i,s way hither The
house have already passed bill Of relief in what the
court consider the weaker case of the two
The consumer pays the duty goods which are burned
IN the original packages just much he pays it on
goods that have peed before they reach the portland
no more The preposierous proposition, that man may
get as much for 800 gallons of brandy he would get
1000 galons-simply by putting larger price per gallon
on The smaller quanttyrequres only be stated to
fute ITSELF Yours, respectfully,
From dc coHmaee Of Claims 70 hs House Of Rsprssenta-
fer the repayment Of moneys ezdecd color Of dudes
upon articles not imported into the country.
From the adverse report of the Committee of Claims in
the case of Sturges Bennett Co. ask leave respect
fully to appeal to the House Of Representatives and
quest their consideration of the following argument
The petitioners alege in substance that they have paid
moneys to the collector of New York on certain brandes
never imported into the country These moneys have been
paid into the treasury of the United States The petition
ers ask that their moneys may be returned to them
The Court OF Claims says that money thus paid cannot
he
mind can resist There 10 for the slightest doubt
that in this instance the money paid under the in
fuenee Of the mistake just described and to minds
II is obvious that if there be right of the law
sanctions the doctrine that the property Of one be
acquired by another without the consent fault of the
owner" $
The Committee of Claims say that the United States may
legally and jnsty keep these moneys For conclusion
far departing from what the court consider hon
esty and clear law, they assign no of their own.
They rest on the dissenting opinion of Judge Backford
This opinion not being the Judgment court entitled
to the same weight and respect the opinion of any
br OF the committee who has examined the subject in
rovesy is to be presumed that the committee could
assign better other than those submitted by
Judge Backfod The examination of this opinion there
fore is presentation of their whole
Judge Blackord says that duties paid iio protest. are
not Illegally exaced He says that to maintain suit
against collector protest is necessary by siatute and
that suit against the United States in the Court of
Claims, ia the same as suit against collector,
With regard to the last proposition it is enough to say
that The aw is otArwse The question is one that could
never have come into judgment before the establishment
OF the Court of Claims No other court therefore, by any
dictum could have anticipated the law this point
The Court Of Claims says that the United States party
defendant s not at liberty to avail itself of the statute pro-
vision that discharges the collector in suit of this
must be TAKEN them as the law of the land until
some Judicial tribunal s established with power super
wise and correct that Judgment If erroneous
The remedy Of the merchant against the collector is
gonethe remedy by application to the Secretary may be
gone; but the liability OF the United States to refund the
money when by law made defendant in its court Is
NOT ExrisdrisHRD Thus says the Court of Caims-the
first tribunal ever established with judicial power take
cognzance OF this precise question Having therefore
necessarily exclusive Jurisdiction the subject its decis
ion s THE LAW, and is entitled TO the weight Of law in de-
timing aid establishing legal rights. This submit
proposition that cannot be controverted.
With regard to the second assigned by Judge
Backordto viii that moneys taken under color of duties
on articles not imported not illegaly exactednhe
mere statement of it would excite smile if it pro-
pounded in any other than judicial opinion We propose
TO give it a respectful consideration. |
The consu uuonal power of Congress in this regard
Is limited 10 the collection of duties on imports (Con
art But imports are the articles themselves
which are brought INTO the country" Drown Mary
land IL VIII. r. 43s) and acan nothing which is
not actually brought into limtsH MArott Brune
How r. 632.) \
The collection Of revenue article not existing
and never coming into the country would be anomaly
mere ction Of tc and Is not to be couneuanced where
expressed in acts OF Congress- required enforce just
rights' (Ib 632 633l a
Where portion Of the shipment in cases like these
leases OF loss from various causes does arrive here
and hence does not under The possession and ccgnzance
Ite oceTs, heretofore
oe taxed on any ground of law of truth and propety
and does not therefore, require for its exemption any
tive enactment by Congress Such is the of portion
being lost by perls OF the by being thrown
board TO save the ship by fire. piracy larceny
barray or sale and delivery the voyage by
raj decay there be material loss il make differ
epce TO the sufferer the government whether it happen
ed by natural artificial In either case the drii
Gle mot here be assessed to be Of any value to the
ITO add to such unfortunate losses the burden of duty
on them imposed afterwards would be uneaed-for
gravaon; would be adding cruelty TO misfortune and
would not be justified by any sound reason any
provision OF law On the contrary Congress in several
instances when the articles imported actually arrived
here and afterwards destroyed by ere before the
packages had been opened and entered the consup
ton OF the country have refunded reitted the duties
9But much should duties not be exacted what
lost destroyed its way hither and which
came even into the possession control of the custom
house officers and much less into the Of the commu
nty.n-(Ib- m snprd.l
These views carried into the opinion of the Su-
prcme Court in Laurence w. Cdslce, Us How. r. 49,
and sufficient for the decision OF that far
has any bearing on the of Hryes, Bennett, q Go.
H. But in Laurence Cdsweu the court deem it prop
er to say that unless the party paying duty article
not imported protests against the exacton the omission to
protest egalizes the exactop To cite their words
where such protest is made, the duties not lille
gay exacted in the legal of the term for the law
has conded to the Secretary of the Treasury the power
deciding in the first instance upon the amount OF duties
due the Importation And II the party acquiesces aud
does not by bis protest appeal the judicial tribunals the
duty paid not illegally exacted but paid in obedience
TO the decision of the tribunal which the law has
6ded the power of deciding the question"
Herein Judge Blackord finds what he regards legal
bar to the claim of the plaintiff which leads him to over
look what his associates consider the immortality OF the
r. hy he init Siofoa