New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-18
IMPORTANT TREASURY DECISION.

SECRETARY RICHARDSON on THE IMPOSITION OF
DISSEMINATING DUTIES on EASTERN GOODS
THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER, 1868. REVERSED.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-THE following deci-
sion OF Secretary Richardson regarding the imposition
in certain cases. Of discriminating duties goods i'm
ported from the East ia Of especial interest to importers
Of Eastern goods, such as India shaws and The like
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
WASHINGTON, Nov. II, 1875
SIR Your communication OF the 30tl ut i received
COnuOrs & Co. from your decision assessing dlscfln
mating duty OF 10 per cent on certain merchandise the
production OF country east or the cape OF fold nOpe
imported from Liverpool per ship Algeria. The import
claim that the importation IN question Is not SUBJECT
merchandise reached Liverpool by an overland
route, basng their claim upon me decisioh
held that when commerce has established Two routes
between This and foreign country, one OF Wn9h Is
by passing by or around the Cape OF Good Hope
the other IN part overland and continued through OF ~
the Mediterranean sea, distinction should % MADE,
and that goods imported into this country from ports or
places "this the Cape Of Good Hope, when nave
been transported said pors or places from me coun
in part and by the Mediterranean Sea IN part are not
liable t. the additional 10 per centum duy under Sec
You report that the evidence produced is satisfactory
to you that the goods IN question LVeIpYol 10y
Wstand!ng YOU the discriminating duty on he
goods question. From this and other sources tne De-
partment understands that your ocers nave uouDt s
TO the correctness OF the decision OF september 1861 De-
fore mentioned doubts which are shnreu ~ te PreSf.
partment feels il to be unwise in any case Of reasonable
doubt TO reverse or modify its decisions OF long stand
ing and only feels justded in doing when the de-
cson seems directly aniagonjsuc " the spllt
and intent OF the law which 10 construes.
Such ease il the present one and from the examination
have given 10 the subject cannot see That toe ques
as to by what route the goods reached Liverpool
has any bearing on the subject but on the contrary
regard the act June 1871 which Is tho last law en-
acting said discriminating duty as requiring the exc-
ton thereof In all cases where IL Is clearly made To
appear First that the goods are the growth produc-
tion manufacture OF country east OF the Cape OF
Good Hope second, that they were Imported lAto the
United States from place west thereof Inc law there
FORE apply the route Of Shipment or TO the
means by which the goods reach the foreign place west
OF the Cape but wholly the country OF production and
tho place OF immediate export TO TINS country.
This construction ~ also In harmony with the purpose
for which this discriminating duty was imposed by the
various enactments from 1862 10 1873, when was 10
encourage direct trade between the East ana the United
states, while the construction gwen 10 the law by the
decision 1862 based upon the question or route, Is
directly hostile the apparent purpose or the law
The Department. therefore, feels ~ reverse
said decision of eptember. 1858, and u nod tn a. tne
goods Involved this appeal we're tue production
country the Cape Of Good Hope, ana were iui
ported into United states from Liverpool N"nich
place west Of the Cspe. that they were naoe 10 inc
discriminating duty assessed by you ot course TINS
ruling Is not applicable TO wool and DINER artlcies
specially excepted You will hereafter conform your
action 10 these views. L am, very Respectfully,
MN A. RCHARDsOH, Secretary.