The New York herald., 1879-12-03

gage.
Secretary Sherman in his annual report
writes as follows on subject of especial in
terest in this city, as the fragrant offences OF
officials to which it refers are mostly COM
mitted here:-' ''The system Of examinations
necessary to carry out the law has made the
customs officers obnoxious TO many people,
but any system of examination sufficient to
detect or prevent smuggling will be often
sive to the parties concerned. 1t has been
the aim of the officers of this department.
to apply the law equally to all persons
The duties collected on passengers bag
gage at the port of New York during the
three years ended the 30th of June last were
as follows In 1877, 1880 IL; in 1878.
$50, 76O Ga; in 1879, $171.S57 81 The law
does not define any limit of quantity or
value in regard to either household or per-
sonal effects of persons arriving In the
United States which may be admitted free
of duty, and it is recommended that limi-
tation governing the free entry of these
classes of articles may be established by
Congress" Now, any system by which a
law made for the detection and punishment
of smugglers is ''applied equally to all
persons" stands condemned by this simple
statement Of its operation.
But this is not the most absurd point in
the above extract from an official report.
The Secretary confuses in his statement
two different facts-the examination Of
baggage to find possibly smuggled goods
and the collection of duty upon the per-
sonal effects of travellers-and he attrib-
utes the irritation to the wrong one. He
says :-"Any system of examination suffi-
cient to detect or prevent smuggling will
be offensive to the parties concerned" We
do not believe it. Such system is prac-
tised in England, in France, in Germany
and in Spain, and is not peculiarly or
necessarily offensive to the travelling pub
lic Sometimes thin-skinned traveller
gets in rage and gets out of it again; but
the mass of people take the infliction
quietly as thing required by law, and peo-
pie here are as submissive to law as any,
where For such examinations there is o
plain provision of law. People at large
know the necessity of that law and are
ready always to obey it. What has caused
irritation is not the fumbling into peoples
baggage by custom house officers, but the
pretence Of the authorities to collect duties
on such baggage for which there is no war
rant in law, as Mr.. Sherman himself
acknowledges in the above extract.
This is monstrous piece of self-stultif-
-. Iolo he
has in three years collected three hundred
and twenty thousand dollars on passen-
gers baggage, and in the next sentence de-
clare that all such baggage is free Of duty
that the law prescribes no limit as to the
quantity or the value of personal effects
(which may be admitted free of duty;
and, in fact, which must be 80 admitted
whenever the law and only the law is en-
forced. Passengers baggage is free under
the law, and the only limit is that it shall
be passengers baggage in use and not mer-
chandise. Mr.. Sherman recommends that
Congress make a law to limit the amount of
personal effects which may be brought in
free of duty. But what is the use Of such
law if Mr.. Sherman can himself limit the
amount without a law. He either does not
need law or he has acted without warrant
of law for several years.