The Portland daily press., 1886-02-10
Duties Illegally collected.

In the House on Saturday the bill direct
ing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
Messrs. George S. Hunt & Co. of this city
of duties Illegally collected on certain eargoes
of sugar, was read, and Mr.. Reed called for
the report The report is as follows:
During the year 1881 Messrs. George s. Hunt
s. Co. of Portland, Me-, imported sugars into the
United States, and paid thereon the duties ex-
acted under the Treasury regulation requiring
the polariscope test They made protest to the
collector in due form of law aud then appealed to
the Secretary OF the Treasury. This they were
informed by the deputy collector, Lewis B.
Smith, official of many years standing, was all
that was necessary to protect their rights. Some
time thereafter the courts decided that the posi-
ton taken by Messrs Hunt q Co., in 4, regard to
upon made application for refund OF the amount
overpaid in 1881, which was $5,352.59, and were
informed that, in addition to the protest and APP
peal already described, they should have brought
suit in the courts.
Upon Investigation, it appears that the Depart
ment entertained the same view of the law which
the deputy collector had stated to Messrs. Hunt &
Co., and that directions had been actually issued
for refunding in like cases. Upon receipt of such
instructions, the New York custom house officials
suggested an objection, and the construction of
the law was referred to the Acknowledgement,
who decided that the Secretary OF the Treasury
had not the power of refunding, unless suit had
been brought. 1t should be added that every i'm
porter who was properly advised and who brought
suit has been paid by the Treasury Department
Very large sums have been repaid. Under this
state of facts the situation seems to be follows:
Messrs George s. Hunt & Co. paid the Govern
ment $5,352.59 which the Government had no
right to exact. They made protest and appeal
and were assured by an officer OF the Government
that nothing more was needed to preserve their
rights. 1t seems that the Department was of the
same opinion.
The sole defense that can be made is purely
technical. While the committee do not under
take to proclaim the doctrine that the Govern
ment is responsible for the statements of its off
GERS as to questions of law they do think that in
this case the refusal to pay back would be unjust
and inequitable, and consequently recommend the
passage of the bill with an amendment adding the
words "during the year 1881"
Mr.. Springer asked Mr. Reed if there was
not forum where the claimant could have
properly taken their claims and brought
suit.
Mr.. Reed replied that under the state of
information they had there was not.
They were misled by statements made
innocently by an officer of the govern
ment; that these statements were made on
point of law which was so close that the
Treasury Department itself, under the con-
troll of Mr.. Folger, was of 1.-THE same opinion
as the government officer who gave these
gentlemen the advice that they had done
right, that it was necessary, and that orders
were actually issued for payment in such
cases; but gentlemen connected with the
New Y FORK custom house insisted the other
course ought to have been taken, and on ref
erence of the matter to the Attorney Gen
eral, the Attorney General thought different
ly from Secretary F0lger. 1t was a differ
ence of opinion between two distinguished
lawyers.
Mr.. Beach-As to procedure.
Mr.. Reed of Maine-Ye as to procedure.
There is no question about amount. There
is no question about the sums being
due these partiesno question what
ever as to the justice of the claim. 1t is only
point of omission, which omission was
made under the suggestion Of one of the
most accomplished customs officers we have
in the United States, gentleman who has
served for a long time with great satisfaction
to everybody connected with the business.
After some further debate, in which the
justice of the claim was. admitted by all the
speakers, the bill was laid aside to be report
ed with the recommendation that it do pass
The same action was taken on bill to pay
Phinney & Jackson $5,4961S for "a similar