New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-09


The recent circular of the Secretary of
| the Treasury, relative to the suspension Of
damage allowances, under the act of july
IA. 1870, is widely misunderstood in the
West. The customs officials authorize the
following denial of the charge that the cir
cular is designed to destroy the interior
ports OF entry created by that act. They
say in substance: The act of July Il makes
no change in the status of any port therein
named. 1t simply designated certain ports
to and from which transportation under the
conditions Of the act might be made That
act gives the importers the right to trans
port their goods Immediately to interior
ports without entering at warehouse at the
first port.
The revenue act of the last Congress
increased the duties on certain articles. To
determine the operation of such increase II
became necessary to define an importation
within the meaning of the act of july Il.
1870, because, 1t the importation is not com.
plete on the arrival at the first port, ooods
transported under the act of July, 1870.
arriving at the first port before the passage
OF the act of 1875, but not arriving at the
interior port until afterwa would be-
subject to the increased duties attachinr
under the act Of 1873. The actOf july. 1870.
creating the interior ports, speaks of the
merchandise to be forwarded as having
been imported at the port of the frs.
IIlVdi, dDO uTONluts THAT IL Dc examined
at the interior port in the same manner as
would have been required at the port of an
original importation. 1t is claimed that the
language OF section twenty nine of that &C.
shows that there was no intent to change
the fundamental rulings of the revenue
system, which. is that an Importation ia
complete on the arrival Of the importing
vessel within the limits Of port of entry
with intent to unload. This ruling is recoe-
W <,f+ ~,
States Supreme Court. The pretense that
such acts may be treated as original impor-
tatiOns on arrivals at interior ports ia with
out foundation. Goods so imported must
be treated as importations at the port of
first arrival.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in his
letter of April "a. 1875, with reference TO
the new revenue act, took the ground that
all importations must be regarded az COM
pete on the arrival within the limits of
port OF entry with intent to unload, and
that all previous decisions conflicting there
with must be Overruled. This of course, 10
not compatible with the idea of a voyage
OF importation terminating in the port of
first arrival, but at the port of fir al des,iua-
ton, such voyage embracing as part there
OF transportation by rail of goods nnloadsd
from the importing vessel AS an obvious
consequence of this decision, the question Of
allowance ior damages on the voyage of
Importation assumes an entirely different
phase under the previous ruling of the
department. Western merchants could
claim for damages incurred not only on the
sea voyage, but during the Transportation
by land, although the act of July, 1899, an
act passed when there was no such thing as
in bond; provides tor such
allowance only as far as damage is incurred
turing the voyage, on application at the
bort where such merchandise has been
anded, and not at any port at which
I may have been subsequently trans
erred. This act allows ten DAYS within
which applications must be heard. More.
'ver. the act Of 1864 Revised Statutes,
9oi makes an Important distinction as to
'oods transported in bond, with respect to
damages incurred during such transporta-
Ion, by restricting the allowance to damage
ccasloned by accidental fire or other
asualty, thus making it imperative upon
ne Secretary of the Treasury to observe
ne dlstlnctlon between damage occurring
the voyage of importation. from causes
ecessarily incidental to such voyage, and
anage caused by casualty by subsequent
transportation. Hitherto the department
as practically extended it so as to include
ne time occupied in transportation by rail,
urlng which the percentage of original
anage may be largely increased. Ii the
Nv presents an impractical iiity, the pro-
or remedy ls further legislation, but the
ecre'ary OF the Treasury can not be held
esponsible for defect in the law.-CAicoao
fiJ,tue