New-York tribune., 1874-04-01

DAvIs-ltfs all, OF COURSE mere
but think not think that the Governme ent oincea m
whose first duty ia TO prevent fraud shoul never De
allowed TO be directly interested In ts occurrence now
it sometimes happens that engaged as weghers
gauoers &c. In the Custom house OF new iorh -
hrihes or something OF that kind make themselves IN
purposeof personal conseqnences
participae largely in the recoveres arising from acts
in which they were guilty as crminae can na"'1 thir M
that that has happened to very serious extent 40
think that subordinates IN the Vsh
to he i'm postion where, when detection s likely 10 fli
upon ihen they turn States evidence so to speak,
aud themselves into fortunes sea u w hat
element does IN with regard 70 Outsuers anu
in the enforcement OF revenue laws all civilized govern
ments IA mode Of detection. have the system OF re-
warding for information gwen OF the commission o. V,o 10
laton Of the law ana ara o nr 'vs n to aba
don it altogether would propose ID regard 10 oncsas G
their services; and OF course. under such System no
Secretary of the Treasury or officer clothed With poWer
to discriminate in such cases would think OF rewardng
a man who had himself been implicated In q crime:
Mr. BECKr understand that under the law as IL now S
stands where the invoices not absolutely true the
forfeiture the same whether actual fraud were h'
tended or not. 49,, 49,, A.,
MT DAwEs-That is so when the act which makes the
invoice false was knowingly done that s If the party
knew he was doing the particular act "
Mr. BHCK-The modification or tue law wnich you
suggest would 10 conne punishment to cases
where the jury. on that question being submitted 70 h
found that actual fraud existed
Mr. BEcK-But TO modify it also by giving to the Sec
retary of the Treasury TO the Court larger discre
tion where it was mere technical wrongi
Mr DAyIS-fcsi that - my Wow Oh wnat ought 10 DO
Mr. BEcK-There is another question The Courts
have decided although Judge CLIFFORD. perhaps hau
some different opnon) that the forfeiture OF the whole
Invoice follows the false valuation OF an itemf
Mr. DAvIs-Yes.
MIR BEcK-I understood you to say that you thought
the forfeiture the single items undervaued would not
the whole invoice sometimes so far exceeds the ord
nary punishment, even for fraud. that 1t is excessive
Mr. BrcK.-Coud not some particular penalty be
attached beside the forfeiture OF the single article
fine of say NOT exceeding $1,000 or some Other sun III
the discretion OF the COurti
Mr. DAyIs-That is SUBSTANTIALLY the idea suggested
single articles fraudulentJ in large packages OF ober
goods it would be wise to add to the forfeiture OF those
articles q sufficient fine 10 operate as a preventive
perhaps ten tunes or some other number oi umes'
the value OF the articles.
Mr. DAvIs-A personal penalty would always exist in
the OF parties liable 10 Indictment me- ana ih'-
nrisonment That thing runs concurrenty with the
cyi remedy. The civil consequence ought 10 be put IN
court or jury the question itself is tried
Mr. BECK-1 want your opinion as 70 whether II would
not be better TO ix n maximum penalty but no mini
num- leaving the minimum open. so that the particular
facts control the court whether the penalty should
Mr. DAvIs~That might perhaps be wise mode
the of the country TO discriminate IN particular
cases. and to measure out the penalty winch ought 70
be inflicted according to the greater or less degree o o
Mr. DAvrs-Your idea is then, that in case the jury
find fraud the courts then shall DC oouuo 10 innV'
penalty, not eXceed.ag II certain sum-
Mr.. BECK-That is my ldea ,,,.-, l.,
Mr.. DAVIs-That might operate very tudiclously IN
leaving discretion in the breast OF the judge II the
Judge thought It Pad case ne mivs iPISp m mnope oe
lesser penalty. That might he uficous mode OF dong
it. The great policy ought 70 De 10 nave punishment
Mr.. BEcK-where actual fraud Is proved by the YER
diet OF jury, punishment should be uuquestioned
Mr.. DAyIs-CertaIny and there should BE- no power
| to dispense with it,
idea to be that would fix adequate compensation Tor
all officers of the Government. and would dyest them OF
all interest in the thing about when they were achg
Mr.. DAvIs-Yes. You do not understand ne TO sai
that would do otherwise with high ohicers-:he Col
equate salary bat speak of subordinate officers OF any
grades below them. In these cases would not allow %
proceedings but would devise some mode oi reason
| able rewards for them in proper cases
| Mr.. BECK-And leave that in the discretion OF the
Mr. DAvis-Yes 1t might be in the form of promo
ton or increase Of salary by payments OF money
aad should be the discretion of some person, either
the Collector Secretary OF the Treasury or some
Mr. BECK-I believe tnat the law is that half tho
sum recovered has to be divided up.
Mr.. DAvIs-Yes; one-fourth goes in the form OF
motes the officers and another fourth III the form OF
Mr. BECK-Ou there to be change, provided the
moeiies are not done away wth altoGetnef whgreD
fixing it at Ms high an amount as one-haltf
Mr.. DAwEs-l thuk 50. One-fourth goes now in The
direction Of the informcrs share and that s absolute
uudeg the law. It must be that proporon and when
ever the ascertained he gets that share.
Mr.. BECK-But In a modification Of the law if any
compensation retained for men outside should it not
such compensation hcactsn the case indicate that
the man SHOULD receive up TO gwen sum- instead OF
saving that he shall have onehaf III every instancef
MIR DAyIs-I am hardly prepared to say. 1t is open,
of course several objections That is to say It would
might nave to good deal of his time to determine
rights of the various claimants anu tc amounts
that should he awarded, ana IL might iead 70 great
| deal of controversy.
Mr. BEcK-Could not the district court that had cogn
zaDce the decide it better than the Secretary
Mr. DAvs-I believe the Judge OF the court does now
determine who the informer is - go, =,
| Mr.. BECK-Bu the informer must nave 0nei0urth OF
Mr. DAyIs-Yes the informers must have one-fourth.
Your question suggests the policy OF not paying one
fourth in every case, but 10 have sliding scale,
Mr. BECK-I propose that one-fourth shail De hc maxi
num- and that Judge shall decide from the merits
of the what the amount to be paid TO the lnorer
should be- II we retain that compensation 10 outside
informers would that be better than liking 1t abso
MI DAwEsNIthink that as amatter OF principle, it
would bett r. whether its working might produce as
valuable results cannot say These iniOrerS are very
much inspired by the hope OF gain ,, - . .
| Mr BEcK-That would perhaps compelievery case to
| go the Judge for compromise.
Mr.. DAyIs-Yes perhaps, S,, It w would m L,,,oo,,on,
Mr. DAvIs-Yes: but the most serious objection would
result imposing officers the ascertainment OF the
amount which the infOrmer ought to receive and which
would involve great deal OF labor. You have no idea
unless you 20 and look into it, what fierce controversies
arise when the spois gathered, the division OF
them among the nfOrmers. They are sometimes ngh-
taEys office you Will find pending there now.
awaiting decision as to who is the real informer Sueh
matters very annoying and EMBARRASSING III the
bVne the question decided by the courts instead go
ing to the Secretary Of the Treasury, whose utfar0us
duties make IL impossible for him TO give proper at
Mr Dawson course If you impose THAT duty on the
courts they will be bound TO perform It, but VIII be an
| embarrassing and unpleasant duty for the courts
| THE AsToR HOUSE CONFERENCE AGAIN.
Mr. BECK-I have never fairly got to understand what
YOU meant by that meeting at the Aoor House on the
| night before the Slst Of December. Something was
agreed on there before Mr. Bliss met you at your office