The Hawaiian gazette., 1873-08-13

Supreme COurt.-In BancO.
urrovr .rrrx c1 MAXWELL ASD wIDrNANN

BEFORE ALLEN, Cd, HARTwELL AND wIDEMANN, ~.
Robert Sterling, Minister Of Finance os. II. r.
Holiister.
OPINION OF THE COURT By ALLEN, C. J.
This is a case of submission under the Statute
upon an agreed statement of facts.
1t appears that in August 1872 quantity Of
tobacco was purchasd in New York by Hollister
& Co, and dispatched to Honolulu, via San Fran
cisco. At the time, the tobacco was under the
control of the excise authorities of the United
States the duties not having been paid, but at
San Francisco they were released from the charge
of the United States authorities and placed by
plaintiffs, on board the barque D. c. Murray to
be transported to Honolulu.
That in San Francisco an invoice of the to-
bacco was sworn to by plaintiff and certified by
the Hawaiian Consul at that port, in which the
charge for freight overland from New York to
San Francisco was not made. But upon the ar
rival of the tobacco and entry OF same at the
Custom House. in Honolulu, the Coector-Gen-
eral charged duties upon the overland freight in
addition to the duties charged upon the original
cost of said goods. And the question submitted
by the parties is whether the charge of duties
on the amount of the overland freight from New
York TO San Francisco is legally made. A duty
is imposed by law on tobacco of Is per cent. ad
valorem, and by the Act of 1864, Consular Ger
tfcate is required, to be attached to the invoice
of goods imported from foreign countries that
the same contains a true and faithful account of
the goods wares and merchandise therein des-
cribed at their market value at the time the same
were procured, with all charges. 1t is further re-
quired that the inward entry shall contain full
statement of what is designed to be landed with
the invoice price and costs and charges.
The law does not state expressly what are the
costs and charges.
10 the case of Hutton VS.. Schell, 6 Batchf
AS The Court say: There is nothing in the
provisions of the Act of Congress of March 3,
1851 q U. S. Stat. S. coo authorizing Collect.
or of Customs to require an importer to add to
his invoice, part of the dutiable value of mer-
chandise, charges for inland or coastwise trans
pOrtatiOn to the foreign port of shipment of such
merchandise. And there is no distinction be-
tween inland and water freight in such case.
1865, Hutton vs.. Schell, 6 Batchf. 48."
There is no provision of law in any COM
mercial country that adds to the invoice, on which
to assess duties the freight from the place Of
shipment to the port Of destination Il is regard
ed, however, as legitimate charge on the freight
Of goods from the mandatory for example to
the place of export. 1t is not pretended that
freight from New York to San Francisco via
Cape Horn and the Isthmus of Panama would
constitute charge on the goods on which to as
sess duties. Why then should it be imposed on
the freight by land
If man dispatches goods from New York to
Honolulu, via San Francisco by Rail Road, there
seems 10 be no good reason why duties should be
imposed on the freight in the one case, more than
in the other.
But it is said that he has made bis election Of
port Of export and should submit to all the |
charges made upon the goods prior to their ar
rival at that port. 1t is true he obtained the |
Consul's Certificate there, when perhaps he |
should have done it in New York, but this con-
sderation does not affect the main question. The |
facilities of transportation by land are improving
and there seems no good reason why additional |
charges should be imposed goods transported /
by land over those by sea, and the question is,
whether at the time this tobacco was despatched |
from New York its destination was Honolulu,
and that being admitted We are of opinion that |
there is 90 more reason for imposing this charge,
upon which to assess duties, than if sent by sea-
The law does not impose it in terms, and it is
q new question, arising from the great extent of
Rail Road transportation.
1t would seem to be unwise to discriminate
against railroad transportation. The Statutes re-
fer merely to the place of export, and to cost and
charges.
The Attorney General for the Plaintiff.
S. B. Dole for the Defendant