New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-07-02
TIE CHAMPAGNE CASES.


The trial of one out Of the twelve celebrated
champagne cases was brought to close on
Saturday by the disagreement of the jury
under circumstances which cause the issue to
be generally considered tantamount to YER
dict against the Government. The present suit
was brought by Alexander st. Marceux IL Co,
wine manufacturers of Rheims, in France, to
recover 800 cases of champagne seized by the
Custom House authorities of this port for
alleged differentiation. About the begin
ming of the year 1864 the Govern
ment became convinced that combination
existed among the French importers Of wines
to this country to swindle the revenue collect
ors by means of fraudulent invoices. Special
agents, among whom was prominent Mr.. Mont
geometry Gibbs of New York. were sent abroad
to investigate the matter; and the result of
their report was the seizure of large quantities
of champagne at NewYork, Boston, and San
Francisco. Suits have been brought by the
importers in all three of these cities for the
recovery o. the confiscated goods and in Bos-
ton and San Francisco tho Government has
been successful. -"-~-7e go
The revenue laws impose an ad valorem duty
on the imported wines, but make distinction
between wines sold to customers and wines con-
signed on commission. On the former the duty
is of courseregulated by the price obtained, and
about this there has been no dispute. On the
latter it is governed by the market price at the
place of manufacture. Now, the claimants in
this case Contend that there is no such thing
as a market price for their champagne in the
French champagne district, for the simple reason
that it is neger sold there 1t is manufactured
expressly fol the American market, and is all
consigned to an agent in New York. The only
means, therefore, according to their argument,
by which TO arrive at a just valuation, is to
take the Ost of the brut, or crude wine,
which forms the basis of the deli
cate drink known as champagne, and
add to it the cost of preparation, with
fair margin for the manufacturers profit. In
this Interpretation of the tariff they were con-
frmcd by the opinion of the Hon. Mr.. Murphy,
our Consul General at Frankfort, and also of
our Consul al Rheims. Under these circum-
stances the manufacturers invoiced and ex-
ported their wines, without suspicion that they
were in conflict with the United States laws;
and at any rata they contend that there is no
proof Of the intention TO defraud which is
necessary TO justify cOnfscatiOn; on the con-
trary, that the evidence leans the other way.
The only conspiracy in the case, according to
them, is among ring of Treasury agents and
appraisers, who will be largely interested in
the seizures.
The Government contends that the market
value of the wines must be estimated by their
price in this country and'while the importers
do not acquesce in ihe justice of this decision,
they are perfectly wiling to submit to it, they
only resist the seizure of previous cOnsgnmcnts
which they declare, and. as we think, pretty
clearly prove, were made in good faith, and
with very plausible reasons. The difference of
duty on these 5000 cases amounts TO about
$4,000, and there afe other suits on the calen-
dar in which the same manufacturers are con-
cerncd TO the extent of nearly S1,0O0,00O But
what they profess to have far more at heart
than the mere value of their invoices is the
commercial honor of their house, which is as
dear TO the respectable and rather aristocratic
wine makers Of France ~ mercantile reputation
ever was to the worthiest old Graders of New
York and Boston.
When the jury were discharged on Saturday
they stood eleven for the claimants and one for
we trust that the other eleven cases will not
be prosecuted. The Government, it seems to
US, has failed, and it would be better not to
enforce the cenfsCation which, in view of all
the facts, has too much the appearance of per-
secution.