New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-14
NATURALIZATION FRAUDS.
THE MoIETY ACT ANNULs SECTION 1884,.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE BRowS-AS AP-
PEAL TO BE TAKEN.

IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE BRowN-AS AP-
PEAL TO BE TAKEN.
| Judge Brown Yesterday rendered decision
diminishing the proceedings IN the st Of the Government
against c. H. Aunort to ior the valnc OF rib
bons which, 10 IL alleged, imported under false In
voices Tho decision is considered CT great Importance
as decides that Section 2s64 Of the Revised Statutes
under which all actions TO recover the value OF goods
randuenty undervalued have been brought has been
superseded by subsequent legislation The Pings case In
which 100000 claimed by the Government. was
brought under this section, and Are constantly
arising under It. The section referred to Is az follows:
n any owner consfgnee, or agent OF any merchandise
shall knowingly make, attempt to make, an entry
thereof by means OF any false invoice or false cerhcso
of CONSUL vce-consu commercial agent, or OF any
invoice which does not contain true statement OF all the
particulars hereinbefore required or by means ., y
false fraudulent practice appliance whatso
such merchandise or the value thereof snail DC ior
| feited.
Messrs Tremain and Da Costa, who appeared for the
claimants of the ribbons argued that sections Of act
known the Moiety had repealed this section by
providing another penalty for the same offence The
M0ey act provides for the punishment OF persons using
false invoices by imprisonment for not over two years
and fine, with the forfeiture Of the goods UNDERMINED
Judge Brown In his descison says:
The only section under which this action would be sus
tanned and which claimed TO sustain t-namey sec
for OF fraudulent undervauation. We need not
spend any time In the details OF this Section but there IL
or the value thereof. On the part of the claimants II is
conended that superseded by the provisions OF he
Msy t a which passed by the ess aut
expressly PTg Ss that ts sScb heY mod
cations or changes as should be effected by any acts
proved subsequent TO the first day Of December 1879
. think that the question 91stp,c comes Of 0i tSe
Moiety act, socalled, as to ITS bearing on Sec,
values and the question simply is whether the remedies
prescribed by the Moey act are to ne taken as suost
ass4 i0s and inO as cumulative Now the law on
That subject has been repeatedly laid down
the whole ground Of former and where in addi
ton appears that the OF the later act Is the
ed substitute for the old although there no
press words of repeal for the reason that when the law
ect and prescbes the remedies which to be applied
upon then' coverng as sad inc Tnoe grthna anu al
he intended that such law expressed the legislative neu
ton aud the whole Of it, in regard TO the subject contain
ed it,
The decision reviews at length the decision In the
of the United States agt Cahin, in which the question
was presented whether the act of 1923 not
superseded by a Law passed in 1866, and continues:
The provisions Of Section OF the Moiety almost
identical language with the act OF 1865 referred to IN the
Clan The exact remedies provided In the act OF
1866 provided In Section IL Of the Moiey act The
previous section No. 1884, like the act OF 1929 pro-
vded for the forfeiture OF the goods their value the
the foreitnre OF double the value and The other for
fixture OF tine goods or tbeir value
The Judge decides that the sections Of the Moety act
therefore be taken supersedng those OF the
ton referred to- and grants the motion to dismiss the pro-
ceedings.
United States DstrctAttOrney Root said that an APP
peal would taken the Circuit and necessary the
Supreme Court He said that the decision II sustained,
would do away with the forfeiture Of the value Of fraud
leny undervalued goods. If the frauds discovered
while the goods in the Custom House they might be
seized, but when they had once gone INTO consumption
the valne could not be recovered