New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-03-23

ID
cial attorney or agent having charge Of any clam
etc. The clear purpose of the act was to prevent
compromise except with the consent of the speciai
agent. IL gave to the District-Attorney two per
cent upon all the moneys collected in suits conducted
nv him. and carefully provided that whenever
moiety hunter was sued prosecuted Tor any aco
done by him in the prosecution of his enterprise the
Attorney should defend him at the expense
of the Government
Perhaps the worst feature of this law was con-
tanned in ts concluding section. IL N the pohcy vi
all civilized governments to provide that prosecu-
TONS either by suit indictment, for nes ana pen
aties should be begun within some reasonable Time
after the commission Of the act. 1t had been the
law of the United States from 1899, that no actoh
should be maintained for penalty or forfeiture
under the revenue flaws unless the SUIT was
commenced within three years from tho time
it was incurred and that any indictment Tor crime
arising under the revenue laws should be found
within five wears after the ofense was committed
The limitation in both these cases was repealed by
the act of 1852 and all its machinery left to be put
in force in any case where fraud upon the revenue
had been either committed or attempted, no matter
how long before the proceedings were instituted.
SPECIAL AGENTS NOT YET SATISFIED.
Bnt this act did not operate well in practice. III
was not comprehensive enough in its PROVISIONS ana
conferred too little power upon the special agents OF
the Treasury. Educated up to the full measure OF
their necessities by three years OF remunerative
| practice, in 1866 they procured comprehensive
amendment of the act of 1863 During these years
the original proprietor of the act OF 1905
went abroad and represented the interests
| of the United States in the double capacity
| of agent and spy. He conceived and executed
the conspiracy which produced the celebrated cham
paone and other cases, the history whereof Is too
| long to be told here Their experience in those
cases the fact that the importers were not
| nlaced wholly under the control of the special
| agents by the act of 1868. and they procured lts
amendment by the act of July IL, 1885, Like the ACT
of 1863 this act was passed without any public dis
cussion. and the first knowledge the country had OF
| It was its appearance on the statute book.
This act created al new class of officers. who have
ever since infested the principal ports of entry for
whom the act itself provided no name or title. Ihey
| are the men who seize books and papers, act as
revenue detectives and spies, and call themselves
| revenue agents. They are appointed by the Col
lector. and the only requisite OF their appointment
ia that il shall be filed in the Custom-house. They
have all the powers of public officers, Invested OF any
responsibility. They may stop any vessel, railway
train or other vehicle, enter any building or nclo-
sure, and without any warrant OF other
| authority search for and seize goods and
| arrest persons. Any one resisting or refusing
| to obey them is subject to a fine of $4,000 and
long imprisonment II any goods are found, subject
to duty the vessel or vehicle is forfeited and these
| persons may demand assistance of any person
within three miles who upon refusal to assist Is a-
BILE to fine and imprisonment No person can assert
any claim to property seized by them without giving
bonds to pay all costs and expenses, and every DOS
sibe obstacle is nterposed by the act to prevent or
brighten claimants from asserting their rights. This
act authorizes the Secretary to make any allowance
to the DstrctAttorney for his services in revenue
cases which che shall deem Just and reasonable
MORE POWER GIVEN.
In this long act of 43 sections, almost every SEN
tence imposes fine or penalty. Its apparent pur-
pose was to create a new corps of irresponsible
revenue detectives, shield them from prosecution,
and give them unlimited power to arrest, search,
seize and conscate dd Hbitum 1t is impossible that
such an act could have received proper legislative
consideration. 1t must have passed Congress with
out examination upon the theory that the Treasury
Department would not ask for improper legislation.
Its improperly eliminates in the seth section.
The special agents had met with difficulties
in procuring warrants for the seizure OF books
and papers. Some judges had refused to issue
warrants on er parte afiidavits, unless probable
case of fraud was made OUT and as thelaw required
the warrant to be granted by the Judge OF the
district in which the seizure was to be made, there
were some districts in which warrants could not
conveniently be procured. The seth section, there
FORE in order to facilitate the execution OF the
former act provided that any district judge Of the
United States might issue the warrant for the
seizure of books and papers, and direct the same to
any collector or collectors in whose district any
such invoices, books, OF papers may be thought to
be. Under this act district judge of Texas
can issue warrant for tho seizure of books
aud papers in New-York or Boston, and II any
district judge be found in any part OF the
United Satesjwho will issue such warrants without
consideration upon defective evidence. the last
difficulty in procuring such warrants for seizure In
any district part of the United States is removed
This act repealed fewer than eight previous acts
of Congress- parts thereof all of which contained
restrictions upon the prosecution of cases.
which in the opinion of Congress had been just and
reasonable and swept away every vestige Of legal
limitation upon such prosecutions.
| AN UNEXPECTED DIFFICULTY AND IT'S SOLUTION.
The provisions of the acts of 1868 and 1856 in
voved 80 wide departure from all former acts upon
| which prosecutions for a violation of the revenue
law had been based, that their passage operated to
| repeal the laws under which many pending prose-
cutions had been instituted. This was q conse-
| quence which the authors of these laws had not
thought Of The general rule that the passage of
act pso ato repeats all former acts inconsistent with
it, is one which is generally understood and is
monty supposed to be in force in the Congress of the
United States BY the act of Feb 25, 1884, however,
il is provided that the repeal of statute shall
not have the effect TO release or extinguish any
penalty forfeiture, liability incurred under such
statute, unless the repeating act shall so eX-
pressly provide and such statute shall be treated
still remaining in force for the purpose of sustain