New-York tribune., 1878-11-08
THE KID GLOVE WAR.
A DECISION BY Mr.. FRENCH.

| THE DECISION OF THE COLLECTOR AT NEN-'oHh
| AFFIRMEp-THE COURTS THE ONLY REsoUHch
OF THE IMPORTERS
| w,ssISGros. Nov. 1.-THE decision of Assistant
Secretary French in the kid glove case, when mas
been approved by Secretary Sherman, IL long
| document of which only summary need DC pre-
sented. Mr. French holds that an appraisai OF
kid gloves, under the law, was aDsoiutey
eno, and conclusive from the manner in which
il was conducted. He sets forth at considerable
lenutb history of the proceedings had mp to the
present time and says that the importers do not al
le0e that there has been any fraud whatever, ana
that they do not deny that the decision Of the Ap-
nraisers and Collector as to value IL conclusive. lie
savs however that the importers claim that there
WAS irregularity in the proceedings: TINS question
the courts have full power to try and decide upon.
after an appeal has been hd to the Secretary MI
French cites several decisions bearing on this point
He then continues:
Assuming then that the Secretary in this case has
power to examine as 10 the regularity OF me Procsea
respect is not without einolrrassmehL II c,i tne
proceeding OF the General Appraiser ana Coneo, rec
importers aud the Government Inc local nroeg az
pr1aiie ic mas With that appraisal have
appealed The goods have gone out OF the possession OF
tie Customs officers ana cann1t Ge @ ,hev Te node
upon an inspection Of the goods lhere cannot De
eTamnation OK the mrrchandse."-Grceeya agl. Thomp-
son To- Howari o25-o3O There cannot be, therefore,
A new appraisal by general appraiser ana new
merchant appraiser aud the decision OF tho local ap,
praser cannot stand because The Importer uAs eAetcseu
his legal right Of appeal from such decision.
Tnon Suggestion OF this embarrassment at the ar
eunent before me- the importers offered 10 agree TO re-
same Merchant Appraiser. ard IL was suggested thAt
they having already examined the goods might make
new apuraisaI without any eIamn atom IL seems 10
me- however that jurisdiction Of the Secretary can
not be enlarged or diminished by any ot me m
II hua auufu unt
proceedings the acts before him the consent OF tue
parties in particular cannot confer such Juris-
dctlon upon hm. II the acts of the General Appraiser
aud Collector are legal aud regular lusnce
~ authority require that they he sustained there
fore propose review carefully the acts Of the Goee-
tor aud General Appraiser complained OF, with view 10
decide whether they are legal or Otherwise
The Assistant Secretary then reviews the circum-
stances of the appraisal of tho goods in which he
found no irregularity under the law he continues:
The correction OF errors after IN appraisa undor-
stand 70 be daily occurrence In The NeW-lOrk Cut"h
House In many cases aud every ay after an appraiser
ment i completed upon tle suggesion OF the iuporie
or OF some Ofcer the Customs that some mlshkr mas
been made the appraisal revised and the mistake cor
and subsorves the ubsanilal ends of Justice ana seems
10 be free from any objection whatever Such e3rree
lions arc made not only apprsals by the Local Ap
praseT, but upon apprnlstia inide ny "eher"i AP-
IN the case OF Passavan Co. in 1875 where after
the reapprasement, the importers satisfied the Mer-
chant hpprai.er and General Appraiser by new eyi.
deuce That they had erred III advancing tho Invoice
Been incurred me ease was RENTED by direction Of
secretary Brstow, for review Of the appraisemen and
tho correction was made accordingly. Tins aud similar
csscs seem 10 show oncusvry that there nothing
the nature OF final judgment In the first decision OF an
me see no r-asOn why the Collector might not before
any action by the department. recall the proceedings IN
this for correction II convinced that his neuon In
the matter had been In any way incorrect. Inc true
principle seems 10 be that any officer convinced OF an
error may at any time before final action II
had upon his report by his superior OncrT mink
have thus considered all the questions raised by tie case
| ~ presented.
In your letter referring the matter TO You desired
me Ia coneidrr 10 the power OF the department 10
grant the relief asked for either "a 10 acceptance oil
the duties the value or TO waive the e1action
OF The additional atty of 20 per cent" Although have
not replied directly TO that request necessarily lot
lows what has been said that the department has
no power TO accept duties according 10 the invoice
value or waive the cXacOn Of the additional duty OF
20 per cent The law requires that the value of the
must fixed by the Customs officers, and not by tis
department. NAV add that tn- eHacon OF the add
| tiOual duty OF 20 pet cent necessarily follows upon
raising the invoice value than 10 cent by the
appraisers Ii Is settled 10y the decision Of the Supreme
Cor that 90 per cont additional duty is not penalty
or forfeiture which the secretary has power 10 remit
Although commonly termed a penal duty, neither the
! Is merely termed an additional duty"
Your other requests are fully answered except that
have not discussed the nature and extent OF the proof
produced before The appraisers as 10 tine value of the
merchandise that being matter solely within the pro
vince Of the appraiser which cannot legally AFFECT the
| acuOn OF the department ia tins proceeding
Your last request for my opinion an To what rate OF
specific duty would produce revenue equal 10 that col
locted un the present law upon the valuation claimed
by the Government ha.'nO relation To the present pro
cCedng. That SUBJECT Hnh that relating 10 proofs VI
value properly form tine subject OF future cOmmp
ncaJn entirely Independent o the present proceeding
| Much time Will be required Tor tocse considerations
have thought IL OCst net promptly upon the questions
in which paiies actually before tho department In
teresed aud TO postpone the others for future consdcr
Ny conclusion that the decision OF the Collector in
this ease should - affirmed Neryrespectully,
ii. L. FRKNCH, Assistant Secretary.
fl