New-York tribune., 1873-03-17
THE COURTS.
UNwARRANTABLE CUSTOMS ExACTIoNs.
SUIT AGAINST EX-COLLECTOR MURPHY fOh
EXCESSIVE DUTIES ON WINE.

SUIT AGAINST Ex-COLLECTOR MURPHY FOB
EXCESSIVE DUTIES ON WINE.
Tn the case of Joseph Bensausan, jr, agt.
Thomas Murphy as Collector of this port action was
brought to recover s 40 exacted as alleged, IN excess
OF the legal duty on imported In bottles To save
the expense and delay OF trial the following Facts were
agreed upon and submitted TO Judge ohlphah oi tne
United States Circuit Court:
The plaintiff imported from Bordeaux in France ana
entered at the Customhouse at NewYork for consump
tonf37 cases OF caret wine In bottles, on Apri D. io
The invoice duly presented In entry sated tne eos1o
the wine be S37 francs and so centmes ana the price
OF the bottles and OF charges due to be 6S francs
and 80 centmes and the commission II francs ana 30 cen
times making the total value $1,000 francs. or 500 United
States COIN The charge OF IS francs for consus cer
cate was included in the invoice but not slateo h
the entry The appraisers returned the invoice 10 the
Collector noting thereon: Wne in cases OF IL Dotties
each u gallons TO the case s1-25 per cent-5c Inc
Collector caused the entry TO be Quidated IN s47 w
exactng duty OF 500 OF the duty estimated
on entry The plaintiff made protest and appeal IN que
time against the and amount OF duty pursuant 10
the provisions OF sections II and l5 act OF June 3D. lso
The Secretary of the Treasury having affirmed on Said
appeal the decision OF the Collector. this action was
brought within ninety days TO recover 6S 40 goiu duy
claimed TO have been Illegally exacted.
in the course OF long decision in favor OF the pau
tiff given on Saturday, Judge shipman says;
The duties on the merchandise IN question we're Levied
under the act OF July a. stats at LARGE vol l6 p
262 2 which. so far as apphcaDe 10 Ils ciaSe VI
After the 5. asS Of december 1870 Hen Of the duties I
portsd from foreign countries shall be levied collected and paid
the Sss ass nd 51ies H than per
valued not exceeding 20 cents per gso e 80 c c r % o ysiSe
81 per gallon. 81 per gallon snd IN aoGa S p
otherwise provided for the same " per gallon as wns @
ported but all bottles containing quart OF Less 1 1Saa % aaa
Containing Oint sha be held to contain pint aud shall pay In
the rst question raised by the protest s whether this
wine in bottles s subject 70 an ad yaGIe nIe n9yea IN
bottles and not herein otherwise provided for sna %
subject TO the same rate per gallon as S @gs mart or les
than quart and more than one pint en & pe e enI 20
for each boe.' think Il very clear that the Worus
the same per gallon" refer exclusively 10 ne Sp
ciac duty imposed wines in casks ana DO not ncuIe
the ad vaorem duty The latter can IN no just sense DC
regarded rate per gallon Inc rate per Saion s
specific and fixed by the clause regulating the duty on
wine imported I'm casks 25 cents, 60 cents ana I'll per
gallon the specific rate to be apphed 10 each gaOh oDS
lon The act then adds all wines imported In casks an
ad vaorem duty Of 25 per cent Ihese speclhc rates
imposed wines imported IN casks are Iheh dP-
Piled wines imported in bottles, but the al Vdorem
duty is not referred to in connection with the later
II Congress had intended TO impose on wlue imPo@Le1 @ IA
bottles both the specific and ad val0rem dutes ald on
wine imported in casks, they certainly would nave 50
declared in unambguous terms Lhat eouG naVe G @ oeG m
done by simply. in so many words, suP]ectng "l9e Ia
bottles to the same rates OF duty as wine Ia Jun
satisfied that the words the same rate per gaoh Wei.
used only with reference TO the specnc rate appeu 70
each gallon, and limited by pam Terms 10 tna bu
that consequently the wine in question was only haDse
To the same specific duty the gallon as II would nave
been had the importation been III CASKS instead OF
bottles Lawrence agt. Caswell, 13 How. 4SSD Inc
exacon therefore the 2 per cent ad yaoren was not
warranted by statute. and the plaintiff entitled 10
recover it in this SUIT. -, L. - Al.
The remaining question is whether the rate OF duty
levied by Collector in each gallon is the one pre-
scrbed by the statute He required the painn 70 pay
81 upon each gallon The plaintiff insists that 6O cents
per Gallon was tue which this wine was SUBJECT
y the statute the Collector TO hold them as con-
tanning one quart EACH and he thus fixed the quantity
at three gallons for each Ill gallons IN all On TINS
quantity he levied duty Of Sl1l-sl per gallon OD-
yousy he took value OF the commercial OF standard
gallon as noted by the appraisers, which was ST. and
then applied the value of that gallon to the statutory
gallon as arbitrarily fixed by this act There Is no pre-
that there any reappraisement or Ievaluat0n
Toe whole process arthmeticai The noting o. tue
Invoice by the appraisers OF 81 IS Of no impora6%Seh nc h IL
was erroneous conflict with the other part oil the
return It was based upon the vaue OF the commercial
or standard gallon, arrived at by taking that as tue
measure OF quantity by which the value OF the WINE per
gallon was TO be asceraned for the purpose OF eVynG
the duty But the duty prescribed by the statue upon
each gallon be ascerained by arbitrary rule hAed
by the law ITSELF Nothing be clearer than that the
apprase took the standard commercial gallon as The
RUE Of determining the quantity.
This decision reduces per cent the duty IL has long
been the custom to collect wine imported ID bottles