New-York tribune., 1874-03-20
THE SYSTEM OF SPIES.


the criminal case - 10 tho Crcuit Court anl Tue cYl
Q Then il YOU succeed in The one. yoa are satlsaed
and you never resort to the o.her A. Ny Judgment
think In other words that the Jury the same
state OF facts would forfeit goods that would not mud
q DO you think tSat there Is any prasticsf good IN
attempting TO enforce the criminal penalties agr'nst the
violation OF Customhouse lawsi Al doubt very much
whether any conviction would be obtained; Ehether
practical good might be obtained, dc not know as do
| not know what would BE- considered practical good.
q You think that there would be no conviction then,
the Of ev ss ease that not only Wa. an ia,
voice false, but that the party knew u was hse y0u
mlgbt be sufficiently clear 10 secure conviction
JUDGE BLATcnroRD's RULfSCs
@ You have said that Judge Batclford has stated 10
jury that when invoice Is false and IL unexplained
there question OF ineni for Jury at AM A. No,
don't think said that; think said that tbe Judge
had stated 10 the jury that n the invoice flse and
xpained. thar that fact alone sufficient 10
was Knowingly wi done: that /. a. inniers,and it
O. Turn 10 that porti9h Of the law which authoTtses
dence OF ntcu,f A. have not the statutes here aad
doubt very much whe her there Is provisions Of the
statutes On the subject.
mr. BOUTWELL, CRITICISED
You spoke Of one where the lury had found tw-e
for the Government and nod found the party guilty n
frasd, not only OF making false invoice. but Of know
/; to be false Sou said that the party mucied
sInAnn that Mr.. boutwell, r~'~'''v tne whole %
10 after jury had found the man guilty twice. Oe
what ground dd he do that A. I1li else was tried
after | really do not know what ground NJ. Bout
well proceeded; always regarded u as rather an eA-
traOrtifary circumstance.
q You spoke OF 40 where he had rernittcd the
penalties. We're these all after the verdict OF jury
A. SAID that did not think tnat all OF them were alter
the verdict OF a jury.
q But to all OF them which were In point Of fact
rcuntted after the verdict OF jury, that was review
Of Mr. Boutwell, OF the finding of the court aud this
reversal OF that huding A. Not as 10 All of them,
think because many Of those cases were cases OF utg
meps under provision of the statutes that do not use
flaN IN fNA KElIH m
the goods his goods, which he had pur
chased have a case IN my mind now, where q man 80
sworc but when he went 10 the stand the tral OF
the case he that he dad not own the GOODS that
they belonged g. manufacture IN Germany, whO had
cOns gncd them To HIM.
q. Aud there was Judgment against him that tes-
o And that was case that was reviewed by the
rotary the penalty remttedl A. That case - IN
process OF seeking REMISSION IL mas not been actuilS
O. On what ground does that application for remission
proceed, A. on the ground. as understand It, that
Inc statute OF remission allows the Secretary 10 remit
where there has been no fraud or uegHgenci thit Is
eguyaent 10 fraud; understand The statute require
that "A merchant must make a true invoice ana that II
he purchased the goods whereas he does NOT
question whether the merchant knew II or not
O. IL does not leave It open for the icourt but Tor TIE
Secretaryi A. That IL what understand.
Q. DO you think that there is any improvement re
quIred IN a law that leaves the secretary power 10
law reposes a power the secretary, bat do not
suppose that amendment. looking TO the taking away
proposed by tins Committee.
..
law suggests itself TO yout A. think II Is reposng IN
the Secretary very great and very exceptional power
been for three quarters OF acentuTy, and
think the whole IL has worked we'll -
q You think, then nat n Is well to nave cases whicn
been entered up twice times, reviewed by the
secretary aud mat instead 0 the parties appealing to
the court for "A new trial. because the verdict was
against the weight OF evidence or for any other
they should come before the secretary OF Tue
Treasury 20 yet him 10 set the verdict asifei A. Ia
such q the refer 10 do not hnk mat the
verdict ought to be rcmltted. Th,t is my judgment
N fttuE . ". n ul A a.
officers law WHO have knowledge OF n, AMI VINO
r simulated 10 thai exact point of Interest that is
found by experience To take away from them and
about II aud TO have It decided without their knOw
cdcel A think not. II the secretary has ID decide II
on the same principles that must necessarily govern
O. should he not before him the officers OF
the lava A. think that IN such case as the one re
been s5ins Ssy ia ~isl1h tue ohie.s tne 90.
fore Secretary OF the Treasury when he acting
that particular REMISSION.
that before the secretary he refers II 10 the
clerk in his Department who has such matters espe-
upon it A. do not; the only case IN which ever
acted on per,onay by Mr. Boutwel know it was al
most his last official act before he went Out oI office as
Secretary OF the Treasury.
TIL. PHELPS DODGE CASE.
o What particular object 1t to either side TO have
"A suit commenced against Phelps. Dodge & Co on the
3lst of December which rendered necessary to call up
the DstrctAtorney at that late hOur OF the nigJti A.
The advantage consisted IN having suit commenced Ou
the 3Is OF December not lOO)OO but for s2GOOOO
which amounC the parties willing TO pay by hav
ing "A SUIT commenced they could come IN and confess
Judgment for the full and paw tho amount IN which
event 40 did become compromise question ami tney
wou1 not have 10 receive the authority 0f the Secretary
OF the Treasury the money could be pad IN aud the
matter clOsedup
o. That was growing up ont of an arrangement made
with the oicersi A. tt was practically request that
the officers wOuld thus reduce the amount OF The claim
from S 10000 10 S2Go,09.
o Then It arrangement to cover WIN a suit AZ
law the compromise agreed upOni A. / think so.
u What was the reason or the anxiety 10 have II done
on that very dag 4. dOnt know what influenced
them. , -. 4, ,-.
supose Won mean the special agent and the other SIDE
A in slid so was wrong; meant that Phelps Dodge
A. Co and their counsel wanted 10 to De settled you
want To know opinion on the subject, II Is that my
predecessor Judge Davis, had agreed ~ recommend
ettem mt for $2GOOoO; and the parties did not know
whether would recommend 10 or NOT, ana ~ IT cold
NOT lie settled thOut the recommendation or the Dc
trlet Attorney they wanted secure 10 and have IL
closed IN Within the administration Of the District
Attorpey who had recommended II; that Is my
opniou fact, o. the cousei OF tue parties bas
said 10 me since time that he dld not trust me al
the matter aud he implied that that was the reason
q Do you think that law which admits OF such an
aereeInent as that is beyond further perecOui A No,
further perfection. suggest no law which can pre-
vent violation OF law. The Collector had no right 10
hiring any action sl6OO00, when he had before HIM
claim for SlOCCOCO lie might have violated thc law
and 40 brought the acuOn and perhaps have escaped
detection.
THE MOIETY QUESTION