New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-02-13
CIVIL COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-FEB 12.-Befor
Judge SMALLRY.

Judge sMALLRY.
AN IMPORTANT VERDICT FOR THE GOVERNMENT T.
CAN AN "IMPOSTn AND " EXCISE TAX" BE
ENACTED ON FOREIGN GooDsI
o and an eHese a .S dSS be exSccd the
lime On foreg3 meTchandS an mPoss s GeSG pcu IL
Court, and resulted in an affirmative DECISION
y. 80. '. OPINION OF JUDGE sMALLEY.
This Is an action brought by the palntiiI agaist nr
Shook Collector OF Internal Revenue for TINS dstc I9r
the OF 1887 20, for money PAID to him by the plalntI
as specific tax On @any S SfE gs92 TSe Evidence
shows that the spirits were IN bonded ana
went Collector Barney for that purpose me
rersedto accept the withdrawal entry n1ti tne pal.
}sctor ~ Internal Revenue Plaintiff thereupon went
and paid the tax took receipt but at the same tlne
nsSe aSv Calm for this money that he had any control
of the property that he had II in his possession or at
temptel to exercise any control direction over it. IL is
said by counsel for the plaintiff that this tax is in viola
ton OF the law, because, as nc claims, fst-tnaV
"a an ipOst tax and II not an impos but an internal
revenue tax that the property was not IN cohdton 10
be taxed being at the time In bonded waIenGlse, NOT
Government claims the tax as legtmateiy levied and
collected Is very clear and explicit In its provisions
the seventh section OF the act OF 1884, March emitted
An Actto the internal revenue and Tor other
purposes" This section presents different question lion
clause Of Section stood alone it would perhaps present
to some extent the same question: ~ reads tnls 80.
ia addition the heretofore by lew shall be levied
collected and paid on 'g s a Ipod from foreign coan
tries previous Of July next of arst proof d1iy Of cents
coscte upon basis q frat proof and . 6e increased pro-
these goods having been imported and In bonded ware
and Sn 6eS S bes eo6S Gs ana might dis
posed 20 read the act as # the words TO be- were nst
poatel But the second clause leaves no room Tor doubt
second clause 20 further than the first could by con
struction. "And upon all such spirits" 1t adds, I'M
nored nror 10 thq passage OF this act there shall be
levied collected and paid an additional tax OF 40 cents
per gallon" &c Interpolation of the act to these goods
must depend Oh the simple question: were tney 5
and If they were, does the fact CT their Deg IN Dohuet
10 withdrawal, does that put them III DETER c9 S
don exempt them from this tax, thon entered lor
Gonsn0P e guy IN bs a tbe ' Goods u were imported
within the meaning OF the act both parties agree me
inpoIted prior 10 this act" Now the const ructiOn
should be disposed 10 give to the TSt scconWOud apPy
only 10 goods imported between the t OF March ana the
taken of il b. Congress for In the last clause they make
passage 81 tins act" It argred by counsel for plain
tiff that these goods being III bonded warehouse are
larly situated Now cannot tine force Of that claim
II can only be assumed think, on the ground that
matter Of contract between the Government ana the I'M
porter which the Government has the right to change
ators in the discussion which was had upon the passage
NJ the act almost far that but not quite so lar
l9ye BODY would b. bad criterion by which 20 Judge Of
what the law makers themselves intended Members OF
themselves II Congress has the power If they choose,
as they have, To destroy the warehouse system at once
without any notice, they surely have the power 10 I'M
pose additional burlcns upon goods IN wafchOuse'
In other words, II was within the power OF Con,
grcss 10 do precisely what they did in this case; but
whether IL u wise Tor them 20 do this tnat ana the othe
II question for legislative discretion not Tor judicial
construction. 70 Is argued that there was treaty Win
Belgium and fat the construction given 10 TINS ware
house SYSTEM claimed by the Government, would be n
violation Of that treaty That IS question, however
which hardly agise IN this II the belgian Gov
eminent made q contract with our GnYcrnmcnt-iof II
be "a contra ~, treaty T. nothing more than q
Cuutrac. between nat puf-aud tho Belgian bOYerlnent
.ms that We violated H. Government may be called
upon o make redress, but Tor citizens OF our own country
% avail themselves 81 treaty Of hs@und IN this way,
II beyond my conception 20 understand. Therefore |
think very clear that Congress INTENDED ana uses most
liquor u g. said that Having been taxed in another
district and taxed under observation-disclosures II ought
not ~ be- subject 20 dtiOun tax m this case With
that tie CuuIt nothing Co do; that ~ Tor inc action
qucsiioit al. 10 Is said. too that i was matter OF
Internal Revenue. This Is undoubtedly tue; nut
the act iticlt authorizes the Secretary or the
Treasury 20 collect the tax IN such manner a.
be- may dnct and he chose simply 10 Issue q
circular ordering 10 Ia be- paid 20 the Collector OF I"crnal
Revenue That was IN strict compliance with the act.
Congress mlgt have thrown other guards about ~ ~
they chose. bui they they left u 10 the discretion or The
Secretary 81 tie Treasury, and he ordered the collection
OF Ac tax u the manner prescribed have come 10 the
combustion that the law authorized the collection OF TINS
tax and that 70 the duty ~ The Secretary 81 the
Treasury that ~ collected and paid. lie pre-
reribed this mode. and cannot wrong that tue
plaintiffs hive sustained from the payment OF the tax
thus bvicd upOn their goods.
Tho verdict Therefore, VIII be for the Government.
Siduy webster and Malcolm Campbell FOR the plain
tf: Eihan Allen, Deputy L. .. Distrct-Atorney, Tor
dcfendtnts.