The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-02-03
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
8,

CoxsIpERABLE interest has been manifested in
our mercantile community during tb, past week
In regard to a case OF dispute between an importer
and the collector, on which an appeal from the
decision of the latter was had to the Supreme
Court at Chambers. As near as We can learn, the
case is substantially this Mr.. j. III. Strauss, an
importer of goods from San Francisco, deeming
that he had received uncourteous retainer from
the under officers of the customs, declared that he
would not go near the custom house to transact
business, and therefore instructed his clerk to
make an entry at the customs of merchandise
which arrived in the Frances Palmer. The col
lector on his part insisted that Mr.. Strauss should
appear at the custom house, as he desired to re-
move the misunderstanding which, real or imagi-
nary, had risen ON the part of the importer. Mr..
S. having refused to appear himself, the collector
on his part declined to allow the entry being
made by the proxy appointed. The services of
broker were then sought TO make the entry, and
refused as before. The case was then carried be-
fore the Supreme Court for arbitration, and after
a hearing from both parties, an order was issued
by the Chief Justice to allow the entry being
made by the broker. On the goods being landed,
they were seized by the collector for having been
landed without a permit, no such document hav-
ing Dcel taken Out, the OrOer OF the court Delng
deemed sufficient authority.
We give the facts as near as we can gather
them. The main point at issue. as We under
stand it, is, whether the collector has the right
to insist on the appearance of the importer to
make entry of goods. In this, as in many other
departments of the government, the officers are
governed principally by usage, no laws being
laid down on the point. In the conducting of a
custom house, as well as in the post Office, a dis
position to accommodate the rules of the office to
the public service is generally the guide, more
than any laws that can be made. Both these of
fees are created for the accommodation of the
public as well as the collection of revenue The
usage in other countries, where it can be intro
duced here, will often prove an accommodation
to those who have business to do with those Off
ces. In San Francisco nearly all the entries and
clearances at the customs are made through a
broker. So in England and all the ports of the
United States, the importer seldom enters his
goods except through a clerk or broker. The
collector undoubtedly erred in attempting to COM
pei the importer in this case to appear before
him.
Although we consider the collector to have
acted unwisely in the matter, yet the action of
the court HI tnc pIeLnlSts we cQudlly COHucuii.
We have always supposed that the collector was
subject to no control save from the Commissioner
of Customs or the Minister of Finance, and that
all appeals from the collectors decisions would
lie with these authorities. The commissioners
are by law clothed with ample powers to decide
all disputes which may arise in the collection of
duties, having the right to summon witnesses, adj
minister oaths and punish for contempt, and their
decisions have in one or two instances, we be-
lieve, been regarded as final. The action of the
court in the case is very much as if a writer who
wished to insert a communication in the govern
ment paper, and was refused because the editor
didn't choose to insert it, should pray the court
to issue a mandamus compelling its insertion, and
the court should listen to the case and issue an
order to that effect. When there are properly
constituted authorities to whom to refer disputes
in custom house affairs, it would seem to have
been more Just for the court to recognise their
existence and refer the case to their decision.
SEVERE AND UNJUsT.-0ur readers are well aware
that for some months past, n snit has been pending
in California against the bark Yankee for bringing to
this port several of the scoundrels banished by the
Vigilance COMMITTEES of San Francisco. Below will
be found the result of the suit. The decision would
seem to have been attained not 50 much from an
exercise of principles of justice as from a desire to
impose on the only party in the suit able to bear the
enormous expenses attending it-a course which has
too often disgraced the courts of that state in the
shameful verdicts rendered. We doubt whether
Capt. Smith will submit without an appeal to the
Supreme Court at Washington, for in case this sum is
paid, he stands q chance of being mulcted by the
other passengers who were brought here by him:
DECISION IN THE BARK YANKEE CAsE--Judge
Hoffman yesterday filed his opinion in the case of
Martin Gallagher Us. The bark Yankee, and James
Smith, its commander. The libellant is awarded
$1,000 damages, for having been ~unlawfnlly deported
from this city to the Sandwich Islands, in the year
1855. Capt. Smith carried out the decree of Danish
ment passed upon Martin Gallagher by the Vigilance
Committee. and thus left himself amenable to the
laws Of the land for disregarding the rights of citi-
zens. Judge Hoffman states in his opinion, that al
though Captain Smith is not liable for all the damage
suffered by libellant, yet there is no justification for
his act in transporting citizens from their country
under the decree of an unlawful organization, known
as q Vigilance COMMITTEES. Judge Hoffman also holds
that the evidence introduced by defendant, was in
sufficient to show that Gallagher was a man Of bad
character.-HerdId-