New-York tribune., 1875-02-16
addressed the Grand Jury as follows:
ISSUES FOR IMPORTERS.
A COMPREHENSIVE REVENUE SUIT IN THE LINEN
TRADE - CHARGES OF INTERPRETATIONS OF
QUESTIONS AND OF FALSE ENTRIEs-THE STATE

A
TRADE - CHARGES OF UNDERvALUATIoNs, OF
OMISSIONS. AND OF FALSE ESTRIEs-THE STATE
MENT OF THE DEFENSE. ,,,.- ,,,,,,,,,.,
7. a.. o.-o oe 4ha TTrit'" '>
George Hughes Co.. Linen and linen thread importers
at No 1913 Churchst, action was brought 10 recover
soo ooo in gold the value OF port invoices OF imported
goods for alleged frauds the The case came
on for ria Yesterday the United States District Court
before Judge Btchford, and according to the defend
ants the following the facts and circumstances con
nected with 1t:
rne books and papers OF the firm were seized Sept
"a is-3 under y rrant from the United states District
CouTt TIE affidavit npon which the warrant was based
80 nm frud with reference to 60 separate invoices.
1so nnckage- OF merchandise bur only invoices
ANA Il packages are included in the SUIT ApParenuk
tie Custom house detectives. when they had OBTAINED
nossessOn of firms books and papers found no evil
dence TO sustain the charge o 1oiea irSnS ~ Tbe
dIsciosurps OF the books, however, as 70
otber transactions must have mi1gateG tner uls,
sUnptmcnt for the involves the forfeiture OF
the value port invoices embracing over 800 packase
of goods and the evidence upon which IL was Drougnt
and must tried the part Of the Government was
ontained from the books and papers sezeu uhuer the
warrant.
ordinarily suits against importers are under the Rev
euue laws limited the niraction OF single provision
q, the law The famous silk ribbon for instance
and he still more famous champagne cases, involved
only one aueston-that OF undervaration. The Baker
ease also, tried four years ago in this District IN
yolyed tho slEgle question of false weights In
the smuggling cases, which arise 50 Often'
only one point raised at the trial. and that Is whether
the goods we're introduced without being regularly
pa. sed through the Custom house The Government IN
the Hughes case has departed from the usual course
and has embraced in various causes OF action
This tends TO compcate the trial OF the case, and to
make q clear understanding OF the line or defense
matter of difficulty for the jury In this action there
are four principal allegations OF fraud-o undervaua
TONS OF OF cartons. Of omissions of charges
and of entering purchased goods consigned goods
the Hughes
importers OF linen threads" and the alleged under
valuations are chiefly upon these goods The real strus
gle in the trial will probably turn upon the allegation
OF for not only does the largest
mart OF the amount OF the forfeiture claimed but II un
deryauation can be proved regarding the thread in
voices in suit the defendants be held on verv
large number of other invoices OF the same KIND OF
goods and other importers OF threads, all OF wnom
import substantially the same valuation as Hugnes
Co. will be made liable TO SIMILAR suits. II verdict
be given for the Government on this charge tDe moie
men will reap rich harvest for the fOrfeures Will be
OF vast sums, and the law still allows an nfo"mer,
other officer CT the customs to receive reward
OF not more than 50. IN each case"
The omission Of cartons from invoices. the de-
fendants recalls the experiences ot wear ago Nneh
70 beware OF the revenue infOrmers and detectives
Unfortunately for Hughes Co. this warnlng dd not 20
| forth until after their troubles had begun, When
importers terrified into looking over theif oId
transactions with the Custon-hoasc, preoaSy NOR
I
question discovered than from any other course
cartons are made Of either paper or
and are used 10 hold ribbons socks. gloves, handker
chiefs shirt fronts and numerous other imported srt
Flea few years cartons were not dutiaDle when
fact together with the further facts that they are OF
Ittle value and often either furnished without
chaI or are in the cost OF the goods contained
| in them has made merchants careless ABOUT paying
| duty on them in cases where from mistake OF care
| iessness they not speclned as uIstlnet
| charges in the invoices. The present law, that
| M March 3. 1868, eXacts duty on the SACK Do1
or covering Of every Kind and few are the merchahts
deainL u cartoned goods wno upon looking over thelr
old in voices TO discover whether tney hau siu tneu-
bare 10 the informer. did not pnd that cartons
had led them violations OF the law IL ls Known
tnat Custom-house officials allowed many merchants
voInntarly cOnessng these shortcomings N the past
c nav up back duties without forfeiture Out others
ineudlne those against whsm suits had oeen already
begun were subjected the monstrous penalty OF Tue
law then In force-nameY, the forfeiture OF wnOle
invoice wherever any cartons were omitted from
the entry. The Government claims rom Hugnes %
forfeiture Of about $4,000 account OF customs, al
Though the loss the Government on THIS account was
only $500 IN the mpOrratons OF nye years Tue act OF
Iune a. 1874 limits forfetures hereafter arising 70 the
single package containing the tainted goods o< cartons
nut that law apply TO cases pen nng; eonse-
auentY the penalty ia the Hughes case II that exshg
nuder The Old law, by which fraud rs 10 single Item
f0rieifs entire invoice.
nlssl1as VI charges have proved AZ great snare as
nssions OF cartons The law reIur . duy 10 be pd on
: go. - ~. ---- st'n a- , 80 10 80" -eH o'ft