New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-01

is 10 per cent below market value. Now ptacucahy
these gentlemen right IN saving that they nave pa"
than they would have paid N they had put III hcr
goods always cost because the ordinary rule al the
Appraisers Office the great bulk of cases is that the
invoice cost generally taken the market value E'
pciay il so taken unless the advance exceeds 20 per
cent Now the difficulty in these cases wherein these
gentlemen have violated the law occurs RI ght mere.
merchant VINO buys his goods ana enters ne III as MS
own Is bound TO state actual cost his invoices
vet the statute provides that there IL an advance ~
value that advance must be added TO make the basis oil
aug Inc uuoes 80, ~ TIM Of shpment as understand
the law and So where goods have cost certain
price, If the actual value at the time OF shpneh' po
higher urec that higher price the basis OF the duty,
and the law enoins that the sha state the actual
cost. and Il provides that while the advance shd DC
goods have preeated that the market value less
than the cost the actually stated cost si be taken rs
the basis duties aud the merchant gets no adyantag
ia reduction of duties from the fall of prices would
now while think OF IT. like TO suggest 10 the committee
whether it would not Se Just and right that that law
should be changed Thae gentlemen in these different
have entered their goods III some instances TAXING
the market value at little less than the cost because
the market value had dropped But the law requires
state the cost and requires that the duty sha
No that cost although the actual market value
IL nss Ar, there is precisely the point IN Wnch these
parties did an act which subjected mem 10 me eohsg
lnences OF violati Dg tne Jaw, "ec.5.- ;"o -
below the actual cost when the statute required l ue
shond be given in the invoice ana that such COST
Mr. BURcTARD-I understand that they claim that the
invoices the actual cost, ana that the memoranua
were memoranda of the market price. 49,,
MIR DlyIs-NO sir the other way. The invoices stated
The actual market value They coniormed the spirit
of the law which is 10 give actual market value as me
basis But this statute which requires the COST 10 DC
P1eips Dodge Co have contracts for tin made the
first of January, at specific price maj uh Is m
in Liverpool as fast manufactured There comes an
invoice OF 1t from Wales Liverpool, on the iirst oil
July, at the which was agreed 10 0e PAID IN Jau,
nary. They bound to enter that cost price 10 uSr
invoices instead the market value the first OF July
Now, the same tin may have fallen on III value 80 th
competitor in the market eau buy II on e st vi
July at 80 per less than Phelps. Dodge 90 nave
contracted pay II. That competitor sehos ms
Phelps, Dodge q Co. Tie latter are bound by law to
enter their goods at the cost price aud are bound 10 pay
duties on that price; while the oihet merchant WI" no.
bound by the same law to enter his at cost enters mem
OF fifty per cent less than Phelps, Dodge Co.,
and thus Phelps, Dodge Co are Obliged TO-. come into
the market and compete with man who ships DIS TN ai
the time, and pays fifty per cent less Tor H. aho
gets his duties estimated fifty per cent less value
than Phelps, Dodge Co. can have theirs. NOW that
operates with great hardship at times on merchants
ana II seems 20 me that tnat pr0Nson % the s.at"
ought to be ab;Ogated As understand the statute, IL
mistake suppose that where the party has stated
change it, The law says be must do II at the une oil te
Mir. sHELDoS-what would you make the basis OF du-
MIR. DAvIs-Tbe only true sensible basis is market
value AT the time OF shipment when the duties are al
raioreln the Hho buys his goods ten days
find cornpctltor when he reaches NewYOrk, whO from
the market having fallen within those zen DAYS can un
dersel him. say twenty per cent because OF the less
duty which the latter has to pay Ine S s1 conn
my Judgment were led into Inc error WIFI tneD c,
mitted and which plain, palpabe violation OF the
satute) by the idea which their foreign correspondent
had wcn they dd not Know enOus %, t snoU of
the consul in Liverpool that II they gave the acluii
market value they were doing what the law feqifed.
They were doing what Justice and equity required but
they plainly violating the statute. NOW, eo0d
deal has been upon the point that II these gentle
men were not guilty of fraud, they were not a-
BILE penalty 1t does not follow AT az that there
must be actual intentional fraud proved under our reve
nne laws i'm order TO make out ease forfeiture 1t
only required that man shall knowingly 40 the ioi.
bdden act II knows when he docs the forbidden act
that he is doing that act the law attaches the penalty
This may he illustrated by the law relating TO nsuN
man. for instance comes into our state ron ilhCs
lends a thousand dollars and draws note by which the
borrower agrees 10 pay him ten per cent (is he NAV
properly do III lllnois He mas no intention Whatever
to violate the statute NrwYOrz yet he docs violate
IT, aud the penalty attaches, because he knew Wneh Il.
drew the note reservDf ten per cent 'h' nc uu lh"'
MIR. wooD-Altholgh he did not know the penalties
MIR. DGvis-Yes. Tne law assumes that every man
act which he knowingly. docs, whether the man does
Mr. NBLACR-That is the best illustration OF the case
that We have had.
REMissIoNs
Mr. DAvIs-In reading Ne. Bisss statement fna that
he refers 10 where he says two verdcs had been
obtained against house in NewYorx for $4,000 and
that the Secretary Of the Treasury RENTED the whole
sum- Mr.. Bliss is mistaken In the facts OF the case
That was case that was disposed Of In my term The
case came for trial before judge Batc1iOTd was
on the calendar and was moved The defendant struggled
to postpone it. but the Judge on nearing rSanelt Oh
both sides not present. but 1t was tled Dy my as
attendants counsel retired and left the 40 20 by
default The tried then in the nature OF an IN
quest without opposition from the other sde JEdse
Batchford sent the jury there being nobody to say
anything for the defendants in the case but Ge jury
men That case for trial again two weeks after
ward and then the defendants appeared with very able
counsel and went in and tired the case myself the
trial occupying about week -
Mr.. DAwEs-Was the default taken on
Mr.. DAvs-NO objection made 10 Their con. ne in
We treated it though the case had never been before
jury at all We tried the case very tnorGGShy: IL
much superior to myself and when The case rested the
Jury was ready to beat the Government beyond any
doubt; but moved for direction ON the par. OF the
Judge on the legal proposition that those parties haS
were not true. aud must take the consequences
Of the Treasury saw It to relieve them.
directed verdict on my motion. after hearing argli
and in when he did entirely right The remission took
place after left office, but was entirely satisfied that
these gentlemen lad rendered tbemseyc, obnoxious to
the penalties OF the statute they had never to
defraud the Government That was The case which Mr.
Bliss described an which, after Two vcrdlcs by
jury the Secretary RENTED the penalty There was
term, the verdict was directed by the Judge
Now on that subject would like to make suggestion,
which is that in reference TO tnat cass OF cases II Tue
law is 10 stand IL now IS or substantially as now Is
there ought to be provision OF law TO this effect that
in all cases tired before court and Jury, on question
OF alleged fraud upon the revenue 1t shall be the duty
tion Were the parties guilty OF actual intent 10 de-
fraud the Government And II the jury hud In such
that the parties were so guilty. there should ne no
power OF remission but when 1t Is found that
there actual intent to defaud the penalty shall be
enforced by way of example This rule should apply to
all where the Judge feels bound TO direct verde.
under the law (as In the case which / have
just alluded to-, where the Judge should say
10 the jury, when directing the verdict, "Gentlemen
am obliged as question OF law to say that the statute
has been violated and that there must be verdict for
the Government; yet you to retire and determine
the question of actual fraud" II the jury in the
spoke OF had been charged il would have found
the parties guilty.
The CmARMAy-would not the insertion after the
word knowingly IN the statute of the words "wIh
intent TO defTaud the revenues " cover the easel