New-York tribune., 1867-05-31
NEw-YoRK FRIDAY 81

seized including the dutes-and tho property s con
such bond not only the value Of The property TO the
porter at the time Of seizure but also an additional value
representing the amount OF the duties and beside tha
it viii receive the duties imposed by the Collector in
the goods are withdrawn for consumption IL VIII
thus receive ALL Just what IL would receive in case the
property were condemned snd sold its seizure while
not in warehouse but while in the hands Of the I'M
porter, after consumption entry and after the pay.
ment OF duties And it will not receive that full amount
If bond for the value, less the duties, is given But
il has been already shown that tie warehoung system
introduces change to the full benefits OF which the i'm
porter entitled Where the property not warehoused
the Government receives the dutles and fit aierward
sezes and condemns the property II receives ts M mar
ket value. II the property wareoused and then seized
condemned, and sold, without being delivered To me
claimant on bond the Government acquires title 20 the
property and sells it in like as IL it had itself inn
ported II. But in such bond as the Government
claims to receive in the present case Ia gven the
importer WILL have seen, lose, If the property ls
him OF the property in warehouse at the time Of it sci
zure but in addition sum equal to the amount OF the
bonding the property ho wthdraws it for consumption,
no must pay tho duties on it In cash TO the Collector;
Notwithstanding the amount OK them has been included
In such delivery bond He will thus In case OF condemn
aton than he would If the property were not
delivered to him on bond, but were TO remain IN INC
hands Of the Government and be sold by it, In each
the same oense Is charged and has been committed
for which the property Is tolleed IN each case @ Ihe
property is in warehouse under bond for the duties inc
IS equally gy IN IN eaS1 d eSe D o. y bond 1
ing his property when it is seized while in warehouse nc
do So according to the views urged by the COY
eminent Without imposing upon hiihsGi ~ an aDG5 @ & nv
the property s condemned, which ne VIII not incur
III
Such result Is opposed to the spirit ana lnten OF lne
S9th section OF the act of March p 99 One Of the pn
cpal points involved In the case before referred TO- de
cided by Judge sindey was, whether the Dohalg sys
tenn provided for Of seizure by the Sgth secton OF
that act applied TO property seized while In Warehouse
He decided that did so apply and tha u was the lnte, %
tOn OF Congress that tho merchant should nave tue I
benefits and advantages OF the warehOusDg system 10
require from him such bond as the Government claims.
would be TO deprive him, practically OF the benefit o,
while In warehouse But II the property Is delivered to
the claimant bond for It's value when seized not n
the suit, the importer will lose the same amount as he
had not bonded the property and no more and viii thus
systc and the full benefit OF the system OF bonding pro-
vded by the s9t section Of the act Of l7S9 1t Is claimed
by the Government that this view contrary TO Tie de
cisiOn Of Judge Cadwalader in the District C0urt OF P
adephia, in tho case Of The United States agt Cigars,
MayOz and Others claimants Q8 Legal lnelgencer 388,
Philadelphia Reports 57l 1t does not appear in the
report Of that case that the property seized was IN store
stated In the opinion whether the amount OF regular
be deducted by the appraisers In ascertanng the value
which the delivery bohd should be giyenj or, IN Other
should lose the amount OF those duties. well as the
value OF the property forfeited The Court does not
its opinion aude TO tho warehOusg acta discuss the
question IN reference TO property seized while IN ware
house IL lays down the principle that II the property
bond nnder the sqh section OF the act Of 709 that bond
should be substitute for the full value OF the property
Such fu value the Court in that held to be the mar
ket value without deduction Of tho amount Of the du
ties Where property is seized in the hands Of the i'm
duties are paid the fHll value Of the property
to the importer at tho time OF the seizure necessarily
Includes the duties, as have seen. But where
property in warehouse under bonds for duties Is
seized the full value OF the property 10 the Importer az
tine time OF tho seizure does not include the duties Jhe
delivery bond Is intended to be substitute for the fl
value OF the property TO the importer at the time OF
urc and for nothing Uniformity OF principle ana
e0ua Justice the importer in all OF seizure can be
carried out only varying the basis OF apprasement IN
tho manner Indicated cases OF delivery bonds on seZ-
ures of property warehouse II Is said by Judge CAD
aader in his opinion that the circumstances that the
duties have been paid when the proceedings TO fet
the property instituted s, IN reason, attended WIN no
difference favor of the importer Ilmt Is very true
ut il is equally true that the circumstance that ne mas
ovacd himself of the provisions of the warehOusing acts
and given bond for tho duties instead or paying thcm
ought not 20 work difference against him. Such dli-
ference Is maneSty worked il lac is compelled as CON
don OF obtaining release cf his property from seizure
10 give such bond the Government claims IN this
case While regret 10 to differ from so cxpeflenced
and able urst Judge Cadwalader, | am satsn9u
after thorough reflection, that the principle ld dOW Dy
Juge Bette and always adhered TO by him. IN regard 10
tho amount OF the bond be required in cases OF seizures
and prosecutions forfeiture OF property In warehouse
under bond for duties correct. Such VIII continue
10 be the ruling OF this Court IN like cases. unt Varleu Dy
superior authority.
Tho prayer of the petition s granted. 90 -.
MIR Courtney and Mr.. SmOns for tie united otateS'
Mr. Sidney Webster for tho claimants.