The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1870-03-02
WEDNESDAY,, MARCH 2, 1870
The Great sugar Case.

which excited universal attention, and embraced
questions of fact and law of the highest interest TO
the commercial community:
Gentlemen Of the Hazi--The counsel for the clai-
mants has presented instructions, So in number,
with the request that would give them to you as
/ the law of this case. have not according TO the
State practice, marked upon the margin Of each
granted or 'sreused, y but they may be all trea-
ted refused except so far as they contained in
what am about to say sai i-fsa iif fli. Hii
approach, gentlemen, the discharge of my duty
in this with of responsibility, not only
because of the importance of the proceeding, but
because in the view take OF 1t, It's determination
must depend npOn the instructions given TO you on
| the matter Of law. / have been unable to discern
any matters of fact that seriously controyerted
and upon which you are called upon to pass.
In the first place desire to say that neither the
| law which this proceeding is based be harsh
just, is concern of yours is the disposition
that is 10 be made of tue proceeds in Of eons
cation, or whether the Collector the Consul has
acted well i'll, or whether the officers have been
animated by rapaciOus spirit simply by zeal TO
detect fraud anc to discharge their duties. Atbese
considerations are wholly foreign to the purpose
You are called upon simply to decide whether GER
tain matters of fact TO which by law, the conse
quence OF forfeiture of the goods is attached, have
been established by proof What then, is the law
The section under which this prosecution is brought
provides: " If any owner, consignee ageut Of any
goods, wares or merchandise shall knowingly make
or attempt to make entry thereof by means of
any false invoice, false certificate of any Consul
Vice Consul or Commercial Agent, or of any in
voice which shall not contain true statement of
all the particulars herein before required, or BY
means OF any other false or fraudulent document or
paper, of any other false or fraudulent practice
appliance whatsoever, such goods, wares and mer
chandise or their value shall be forfeited. .
You Will perceive that the ofense TO which the
penalty of forfeiture is attached is the making or
the attempt to make an entry of goods, wares and
merchandise q by means" of any false document or
false practice or appliance.
What then is IAN entry! The term entry in the
acts of Congress is used i'm two In many Of
the Acts it refers to the bill of entry the paper or
declaration which the merchant or importer IN the
first instance hands to the entry clerk. In other
statutes it is used to denote not document, but
transaction; series of acts which are necessary to
the end to be accomplished, viz the entering Of the
goods In tue latter sense ii Is used in this statute.
The language is !" if any owner or cOusignee shall
make attempt to make entry by means of false
documents, false invoice or any other false or frau
duleDt appliances" IL Is the fraudulent use OF
means in the attainment of an object accomplish
ing Of a result, to wit: the entry of the goods,
Which the statue here denounees. The Acts which
accomplish this result, and which, taken together,
constitute entry must have beginning and an
end. There is moment when the entry is attemP
ted TO be made or begun. There is moment when
it is accomplished The entry may be said to be
commenced or attempted when the merchant pre-
sents his declaration or bill of entry When this
bill of entry has gone to the requisite clerks desks
when accompanied by the certiieateiof the Consul,
the invoice and the OATH II is delivered to the Col
hector and accepted by him. then the goods may, in
just be said to be admitted TO entry and the
entry be accom- plished. If in the performance of
try, any false document fraudulent appliance or
practice is resorted then this statute applies and
the goods SO entered are forfeited to the United
States.
Whether in the course Of the proceedings one do
cument is used, or two or three used, make
no difference, 1t islalso inimateFia whether there
or two bills of entry indicating the DISPOSE
tions which the importer desires TO make of the
goods: of some to the warehouse ana some to
be Withdrawn for consumption or whether he takes
one oath or two oaths. The entry Consists of the
% Is reQuired q
that object, and if IN the course of themth impor-
ter isnilty Of any false fraudulent practice, or
uses any false document whatsoever, he comes with
in the law. r -s.- ..-r .rr-y.. ..-a ..
1t is urged in this case on the part of the Govern
ment that in making the entry the merchant in
point of law, may be said to present himself TO the
Collector with his documents in one hand and his
goods in the other, and il the character OF the goods
themselves is faudulenty disguised if any false APP
pance with respect to them is used, il may Justly
be said he has effected his entry "by means - Of
that applauee. / think, gentlemen, it would per-
haps be straning the statute to say that any false
practice with reference to the goods themselves
could be said to be a a. means of making the en-
try. He does not make his entry "by means OF
that false practice or disguise But be does make
his entry a." by means OF any false document he
may use or any false oath be may take if such do
cument or Oathbe requisite and necessary as means
and condition precedent to the goods being admit
ted to entry. Therefore, if this invoices the certi
fcate of the Consul, or the oath he has taken be
false or fraudulent then he has made use OF frau
dnlent pecessary TO effect the very object he
had in view, to-wit: the procuring bis goods to be
1t is alleged that the oath of Mr. DeRo was false
1t is pretended that Mr. DeRo knew the facts of
the case, was himself personally, either morally
or legally cnlpable in any point OF view. Bnt the
knowledge of his principal is his knowledge FOR such
purposes and that it must be SO is evident. For
otherwise, any fraud GOULD be perpetrated Within
punity by procuring Innocent broker agent,
through whom parties not innocent could effect
the entry of their goods 1t is therefore not the in
nOcenee guilty knowledge of the agent, but it is
the knowledge OF the owner himself who Las de-
yised the fraud which carries with ii the consequence
of condemnation.
Treating, therefore, Mr.. Dc Ro's oath as if it were
made by the owner it is claimed by the prosecution
that it is false. He swears, gentlemen that lie has
not in this invoice entry concealed suppressed
any fact whereby the revenue OF the United States
might be defrauded.
1t is argued, with the ingenuity which has chaiac
terzed counsel throughout the whole case, that the
suppression or conceament of any fact which the
law does not call upon him to disclose is not wrong
full, and that inasmuch as in this case, it wa, not
requisite that in the entry the invoice the color
of the goods shall be stated, the suppression
cealment of the true color could not be offence
II true, gentlemen that the color of the sugars is
not required TO be stated In the invoice, but from
the of the oath that is required to be taken, it
appears to plain thai Congress intended by i'm |
posing so searching an oath that there should be
disclosed at the time and not suppressed conceal
ed any facts whether required TO be stated in the
entry or invoice or not, which ii was important to
the interest of the revenue to be known where
by the revenue Of the United States might be de- |
frauded. Had it been intended that the importer /
should merely swear that the invoice bill OF fading
aud entry true, the oath would have been to /
that effect and nothing But it goes further
The importer swaars 'tat the invoice and bill of |
ladng now presented by me to the Collector OF |
-- are the true and only invoice and bill of /
ladng by me received Of the goods, etc, fhst the
entry now delivered by me contains just and true
account OF said goods, etc, according TO said in |
voice aud bill of lading, and that nothing has been
on my part nor TO my knowledge on the part of
any other person, concealed or suppressed where /
BY the United States may be defrauded of any part
Of the duty lawfully due on said goods, etc
1t appears to me, that when that oath Tequir-
ed by Congress Il was Intended to cover just such
Transaction this and that though the statements
of the invoice might be true; though it might con- |
tain ell that the law required TO be stated therein
yet if from the nature Of the transaction, by any
fraudulent device contrivance there some |
thing which, n concealed suppressed, might tend
to defraud the revenue Of the United States, it
then to be disclosed and the suppression Of and /
failure to disclose that fact made the oath to that
tent false oath, thus constituting it false docu-
ment and appliance ''by means OF which the entry
was made.
It has been argued, gentlemen, that it is essential
that the Collector Of the should be deceived
But the effect npon the mind Of the Collector Of the
fraudulent appliances is wholly mmaierial; wheth- |
eT or not he believed in the device statement |
whether be was colluding with the party entering
the goods, or knew in advance that fraud was in
tended or was to be attempted = wholly immaterial
As well might il be said of Or tcted for perjury
that the magistrate before s.-Ht he had appeared
and before whom be was required TO take his OATH |
did not believe the story or knew he swearing /
falsely. Such defence eould not for moment be |
admitted, and the case is nearly identical with this