The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-28
REPAYMENT CLAIMS, AGAIN.

TO The Editors Of the Union:
Your correspondent Candorp this morning speaks Of
INV previous communication relating to certain de-
cons of the Court of Claims in favor of the repayment Of
sgauyxactsd ds' thus assuming, in his statement OF
the question, that the duties Illegally exacted
Now if Judge Backford quotations from the decisions
of the Supreme Court accurately given in his printed
opinions il Is concusvey established far Judgment
of the Supreme Court establish any principle of law
that these duties were NOT illegally exacied.
am unable find that perfect consistency between the
opinions Of Judge Scarburgh referred to by aCandor
which result his decision that these duties were illegally
exaced and those of the Supreme Court expressly deciding
that duties levied under state of facts precisely similar
were not Illegally exacted unless the equitable doctrines to
which referred being now introduced into hscal ques-
ons Tor the st time be assumed Whatever respect the
Oourt of Claims may entertain for the decisions OF the Su-
preme Court as urged by Candor is apparent that In
this class of cases the former do not hold themselves bound
by the decisions Of the latter finally settling the law OF
the land with the exception of Judge Blackord who rests
his opinion that these duties not illegally exacted
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
on the special facts in any of these cases. must plead
ou;,tv os the ignorance with which "Candor SO freely
charges me Admitting his statement to be literally true
that the invoices made out for full casksthat the
collector levied and collected duties on the invoice guam
y and that he forced the importer to pay these duties
stl n does not follow oppressive this may seem
that such duties were Illegally exacted Duties imports
av he and doubles are countries, levied in an
arbitrary and negotiable But the Supreme Court
have solemny decided that these duties were not Illegally
exaced because there objection mt the time The
difference between the quantity assessed and the real guam
tty was probably very slight in each cask Had any con-
siderable portion disappeared the importers would hardly
have paid 100 per cent duty the quantity the casks
would hold without objection protest. which would
have secured its repayment The question in these cases
is only practically important because of the vast importa
ton of liquor without protest between lS46 and 1851 as
well as the great principle Involved which affects our en-
tire system
According to the decision Of tue Supreme Court if for
NAL objection was made at the time the liquor not i'm
ported would be subject to duty But where duties
we're voluntarily paid without objection protest. as in
these cases they must under the theory of indirect taxa
tion be held have been paid by the consumers in the
ordinary Of business The importer charges the
duly upon the consumer whether the came be much or
little If duty was imposed on gallon In task more
than was actually imported it would of course be charged
with the price and profit to the The statement
of aCandor admitting it to be literally true every
ticuar raises no equity in favor Of the importer because
as before stated after the lapse of many years. these
liquors must be held have gone into the hands Of
sumers, charged with the duty.
Allow me to add that if the slightest ndecorum dis
respect to the Court Of Claims inferred from this discus
sion wash my hands of it. Elaborate articles published
in the leading papers of New York and Boston in
favor of their decisions first attracted my attention to the
subject and the examination Of the opinions of the court
led to those remarks which rudely characterized
by your correspondent THEMS.