New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-30
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT-JAN. 29.-Before
Judge SMALLEY.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CUsToM-HoUsE CASE DEcIDi

D'1~A@--N'
FOR THE GOVERNMENT
John D. westfal agt Hiram Barney and Sheridan Shook
large sum of money at least 100000 was terminated yes
terday by Judgment for the defendantor tne 1O'ern
The plaintiff in January 1884, imported and entered at
this port quantity of gin from Rotterdam and entered
o5 sn S5 se act OF July a. is On the 10Th Of April 1854
the plaintiff went to Collector Barney and enderea ms
money as duties and demanded their goods; The CoIec
tor refused to deliver the goods claiming that by virtue
Of section act Of March 1854 entitled An Act 70 In
per gallon in addition to the above tax, levied upon
this GIN and that before he 1.-THE Collector wond snrren
nav bis 40 cents per gallon additional bring back his re-
cept and then he orr Barney would accept the import
me- psh went TO Mr. Shook as directed paid under
protest. received his goods from MI Barney ana no"
brings this suit against both parties. All.
argued rns qSeib oR SIDES Mr. Sidney Webster Nal
Warehouse Act there was an implied contract between
the Government and importer that the latter should pay
eSga I' Il being an interference with vested rights
Second That this tax was excise, and and would not
into the possession of the importer that the law
was really leyyng excise tax on foreign goods when
the tax laid was an Traditional tar" and II II was an
Excise" there was no preceding excise tax 70 aaS St
to and II IL heldby Court TO be an lpOst TAX hs'
then Mr. Shook not the proper officer to collect IT,
Mr. Ethan Allen Associate U. $. Distrct-Attorney ar
That any contract existed between the Government and
the importer under tho Warehouse act TINS was az BEST
changed by aute that the power Of Congress was s1
prene and absolute under the Constitution, ana the
could even abolish the Warehouse act II so disposed
they could abolish the warehouse system, they coud
surely TO- Second That even II the TAX IN queS
tIon was an Excise" and not import TAX IL iell
within the power OF Congress TO levy the same anu th
same attached TO the foreign good so soon as hey entreu
tho port that as the collection by Mr. Shook at best
could only be question Of form f the right 10 levy the
tax was sustaned and this inero question as TO the
mode OF collecting the tax could not be held IN any way
10 interfere with the right 20 make IT, that the secretary
Of the Treasury designated Mr. Shook, as he had right
10 do, under the statute, and no question coMn pe
against It, Third That the tax being lien upon the goous
so soon as they arrived In the Port, the government
had right to collect this lieu In their own way ana was
entitled TO II before the goods passed into the posses
/ sion OF the importer Fourth That assuming the
Government to Ne wrong in all the above POSITIONS that
this suit would lie against MI Shook because he dd
not exact the duties, but only received them wnen
rendered. and therefore, TO him, II was voluntary
payment and he having paid the money over to the
United States he could not be compelled 10 pay Dacki
that the suit would not lie against Mr. Barney because ne
had not received the money and no protest was mace 10
him and appeal taketo the Secretary OF the treasury
conditions precedent by the statute before suit VIII lie
against the Collector OF the Port for the recovery OF
duties 81. -, r, 49,.
After argument was heard both sides, His Honor
Judge smalley reserved his opinion, In order that ne
miQbt examine OF the points raised and tins morn
ing after elaborate decision going over the grOunu
GENERALLY, he directed verdict for the Government
Samuel g. Courtney United States District Attorney,
and Ethan Allen for defeudants Mr. Malcomo Campoell
and sydney Webster for the plaintiffs