New-York tribune., 1884-03-03
CUSTOMS.REVENUE CASES.
VIEWS OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

presented bin to Congress in 1882 entitled BIZ 10
provide better system for the trial OF customse'enuo
cases." and urged its passage The bill was cacu''cu "
facilitate the speedy trial and disposition OF all revenue
cases arising at the Custom House, and saving potn
TO the Government and the importers the great loss
and damage consequent upon delay. Tho aim OF the
committee, at first to have Court OF ArDrauoh
created which should sit In NewYOrk ana near AL tne
revenue which might arise. But so much oppos
ton the creation OF courts was developed that
the plan was abandoned, and the committee, act
ing upon tho advice OF some OF the most
eminent Judges and Senators Washington, drafted this
bill They intended TO take the Jurisdiction OF customs
revenue away from the United States Circuit Courts
aud place it with the Court OF Clans-te Judges OF
this Court having little business before IT, AS TO the
place Of trial and the constitution OF the Court one sec
ton of the bill provided: " That whenever the
appellant files written request therefor the trial sha
be had at York, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore
in whichever Of said ports the case may nave OrBdleu
and the proceedings thereon shall be as io-
lows: A single Judge OF said Court shall proceed
to the port where said originated, and with
two assessors one to be appointed by the Collector
OF the Port and the other by the appellant,
shall hear the parties upon oral evidence Each assessor
was to subscribe an oath that he was not interested In
controversy etc. and he was to be pad %
services OF the public Treasury The findings
OF fact 10 be by the assessors and the conclusions OF
law thereon added by the Judges All the provisions nee
essary To complete transfer Of this class OF cases to the
Court of Claims were inserted The bill never brought
TO vote but the Chamber OF Commerce did not discharge
the committee has continued it each year with jack
son s. Schultz chairman.
TRIBUNE reporter recently visited several OF the most
prominent members OF the Chamber of Commerce, among
them members OF the committee and inquired whether
that body stn considered that the proposed
remedy in 1852 the best method
for securing speedy trials In customs cases. The
reply was invariably "Yes" Said one OF them: ave
have not given up the idea Of getting our bill through
Congress- or course would not oppose the addition
of as many Judges TO the Circuit Court may seem nee
essary any of relief will be acceptable
to us ALL have not the slightest to expect
speedy and complete relief from that direction, for the
machinery of the Government is pOnderous and un
wieldy"
"sneh relief as we want said one of the largest i'm
pOrers In the city "and which would go to the root OF
the difficulty, Is not to be had by simply in
creasng the number OF Judges. What we need Is
reform on the part OF the Government which shall en-
tircy do away with the existing scheme OF reapprase
ments. Two radical changes are needed: Domestic
value substituted for foreign value and tine permanent de-
tenton goods the Government substituted for the
imposition OF increased duties and penalties. In that
way costly and complex system of to-day would
give place to quick and simple as the give and
take dealings OF two merchants. This reform has the
sanction experience for it has long been done upon the
continent OF Europe and in England; France and Ger
many have this law.
"If we had such a system do you not see that 1t
would do away with the bringing OF suits
against the Government and thus avoid all
the difficulties as to delay and injustice in customs
cases4 Let the Government adopt 1t and take the I'M
porters goods at his valuation and pay him five per cent
or ten per additional and the duties already paid
his entry when the Government believes that the goods
are properly chargeabe with higher rate Of duty than
they would be according to the value described in the
entry the whole question under discussion would be
permanently settled There would then be no need Tor
additional Judges more courts. As method OF relief
/ would recommend that the government auopI INC
system suggested"
Mr.. ROBBINS OF TIE CHAMBERS BILL.
"Cu.toms disputes between the Government and the
nporers are of two kinds" said ID. c. Robbins, of Nc
Kesson & Robbins. FIRST, disputes in regard to the
tariff relation to the proper classification OF Soodsi
and second, underyauaOn in the entries OF merchan-
disc in the Customs departments. To remedy or more
uropcrly 10 ~pOse OF the first kind want either an
additional Circuit Judge to devote his entire alen-
ton these cases, or, as DeItcr aIagcmeut, Sone
special legal provisions Tor the speedy tu ana hni as
po-tion OF all disputes that may ARISEN regard 10 proper
COnsiuctioW0i the text OF our laIlt laws IIunpt C
risi0ns much important to tie Importer than
lctHIl.d9 ~ ,ro,,otn tla intere.ts
OF OF the importer. but they are framed to
the needs OF the Nation OF the policy OF the COY
eminent to provide revenue Oh 70 Pi%.oc1 & ugS'o @ @ m
nport AMI end can be served by critical mtcrpreta
ons Therefore all decisions should be prompt ana OF
nearly correct as posslble and may ada %hat
is of the most importance: these decisions should DO
permancnt and uniform throughout all the various GUS
toms districts, in order that the importer may make |
definite calculations in his transactions In the purchase
goods in foreign markets ana IN the ehtry Oh hefcha
disc IN the Customs departments
An additional Circuit Judge nuder onr present |
ibe diilicuity is that judicial decisions under
present system subject TO appeal to the supreme
Court and appeal involves delay OF years, which Is
serious injury, with practical conscaton in whole or In
part o the interests OF the Government well as the i'm
orter. Almost all cases Of dispute between the Govern
ment and the importers under our present system are
given out shares 10 "A class or lawyers VINO make |
speciality of these The usage Is to dyde the pro-
Ceeds OF the decisions or spos ODaneu rom thc Govern
ment. These decisions are generally adverse TO the Gov
for the reason that the importer Away more
OF an expert or mas better Ior GAPcl.
testimony in his favor than the Government possibly can
do la addition to this, all ulles lean ls lhey snouu
naturally ia their decisions, 10 the siue OF lne nPOcl
upon the sound principle always IOIOWtd III EIop51n
court that the government being absouteas opposed TO
the subject or citizen should MAKE s requirements OF
laws by careful expression &c the outset or by
cannot De msconsrued TO promote these views favor
the bill proposed by the Chamber or C0mmerce-WMoh
cmbodie the views OF large majority OF the seven nun
drcd merchants composing the Chamber-as c0npIO, |
measure to meet the views OF the Government anu
the desires Of the importers"
WHAT THE FATHER OF TIE BILL SAYS.
Since the repeal Of the moety law and i'm fact gr0ws
ing ont OF that discussion" said Jackson s. Schultz
there has strong desire on the part OF the mer-
chants to ODyiate possible, and where this
impossible then to facilitate prompt adjustment Of the
differences that may between the Custom House and
the importer The principal features of the bill prepared
nv tbe Chamber of Commerce Committee were as follows
The appointment OF Judge for each large collection dis
trct on the nomination Of the President and confirmation
of tue Seuae merchant aIbraOrs 10 be associated
with him, OF them TO be appointed by the Collector OF
the Port, and the other by the merchant HtgaOrs.
Court of Arbitration thus constituted was supposed To
be well calculated to decide promptly and equaby all
cases arising under our complicated revenue system.
OF course provision made for appeals. It sup
posed that practically the presiding Judge would control
the arbitration in all matters Of law and legal cOnstruc
ton while the expert merchants, selected presln
ably for their special knowledge In regard 10 the matter In
dispute, would Judge wisely as to the facts.
the committees of the two Houses, the objection was
made that U created court, III many OF lt5 features
unknown to our legal system. Some Senators seemed to
doubt the ConstitutiOnay OF such court while many
objacted 10 the increased patronage 10 gave TO the Ad
In Tar nOssnln all LhnAc OBJ |