New-York tribune., 1875-02-18
THE COURTS.

A CHECK IN CUSTOM-HOUSE COSTS.
An IMPORTANT ACT WHICH HAD BEEN OVERLOOKED
BRoUGHT FoRwARD-IMPoRTERs NOT OBLIGED
TO FURNISH EVIDENCE AGAINST THEMSELVES
THE SURPRISE IN THE CASE OF HUGHES d co.
In the case of the United States against
George Hughes Il Co.. in which is sought 10 recover
500 10 gold alleged frauds the revenue. in the
Importation Of and linen thread the books and
paper. OF firm seized at the very hight OF the
manic OF 1873 and removed TO the CustOm-house and
their owners were 10 them except by per
mission certain officers in the Seizure Bureau The
trial OF this case was yesterday in the United
States District Court, before Judge Batchford The
main feature OF proceedings the discovery Of
very important law which has been on the statute book
since Feb 25 1853 and decision under 1t which will
throw ont of court nearly all OF the Custom house
on the calendar.
Some time was occupied in formally putting ia evi-
dence the rest OF the suspected goods.
imported by Hughes & Co. Thomas A-Smith, member
OF that firm. testified generally, that he was engaged
IN importing linen and linen thread AT the conclusion
OF r Smiths testimony, the real fight Of the day be
pau Mr.. Slmons, Of counsel for the Government.
moved that Hughes d Co. be required 70 produce,
evidence against themselves certain books and papers
which had been arbitrarily taken from them by order
of the Court III September 1873. Mr Eaton, counsel
for the defendant objected the ground that the act
OF Feb o. 1865 prohibited the Introduction evidence
against the defendants OF books and papers which had
been obtained from them by Of judicial pro-
ceeding Every one, except Mr.. Eaton, appeared
eonsiderably surprised at the position he had
taken and Judge Batchford asked, II that
law applies, what becomes OF Se6pGnd
d,e,s .ei.,n ." "A subg@Na dsoes teepD,." quickly
replieA Mr. Eaton, Is very dIferenf thing
from warrant for the seizure OF books and papers"
Mr. smons then stated that demanded the books and
papers on stipulation for their production a. the trial.
Upon examining the document referred 10, Judge
Rschford said that IL net stipulation. because It
was not signed by both parties Returnina 10 tho iis
eus,on OF the act which he had quoted MI Eaton
his former statement respecting is provisions
and said The Government seized our books ard pa
pers ON Black Fl day, and subjected great oss and
yenenee ~ retaining possession OF them three
msuths There was then ample time aiiorued Tor their
examination and that TIME should have been Improved
N 1, plain thai the act Of Feb 1868 does not requa
the imp porter furnish, evidence against himself
trial before the court which he is defendant auy
books and papers which have been taken from hin by
reasons OF any judicial proceeding"
In replying 70 Nj Eaton, Mr. simons stated that the
act OF Feb. 20. 1864 the best Of his knowledse had
never before been presented for judicial construction,
and thai, therefore he had No precedents 10 offer
respeetna dee esi0ps under 10. He claimed however,
that by the acL Congress did and could not intend
20 deprive the Government OF its main OF
denees Of fraud as would b deprived. n books and
papers seised from importer could not be used
evidence against him st the trsl OF his case in
sThe whole scope and intent Of the seizure aw" sand
Mr. simons ais TO obtain evidence TO be used the
trial. and that infant TO defeated BY tho as Of Feb %
1905 a.
That act says among other things: "So discovery OF
ey.4sars oyauad by @saas Of asy l9aelal proesecas