The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-04-07
SUPREME COuRT--.ApRIL TERM.
DOLE, j., PRESIDING.
.Continned from yesterday.l

q violation of the revenue laws, Dut
there is no such allegation that there
has been a violation of these laws.
The complaint only says that goods
have been withdrawn from the Gus
tom House, and that is not mentioned
in the statute defining a violation
of the revenue law. The law also
says that any action for the violation
of the revenue laws must be brought
within six months from the time of
such violation. This statute is as
binding on the Government as on
the individual. The Government
made the statute and expressly
stated therein that no action should
be brought after six months.
This is an action of assumpsit for
what? There is nothing set forth IN
the complaint that we promised to
pay. The Collector-General has no
right to let anything 90 out of his
hands without the payment of duties
in cash or an approved bond for the
same. The only action that could be
sustained, would be for trespass, in
getting goods out of the Custom
House without the payment of
duties.
The statute states how the re-
venue laws can be violated, and how
such violation can be punished, and
| contend that the statute of limita-
49,, haze ,nt,n, IL, fhic ooco on1
for the same reasons the Collector
General is barred from all action.
The Acknowledgement then re-
plid. The counsel has shown where
the Collector-General is authorised
to bring suit, he also states that this
suit was brought under Section 666
of the Civil Code, for the violation
of the revenue laws, yet it does not
follow that the suit was brought for
n violation of the revenues, but to
recover money on 4 contract. This
was q contract pure and simple.
Smuggling is q crime, but certain
violations of the revenue law are not
criminal. The action to be brought
within six months means criminal
one, where persons are caught in
the act of smuggling or other Grim
inal violations. The monetary liza
bility of the owner of goods, or of
a vessel for the violation of the re-
venue law does not expire by limi-
tation. 1t is the universal law that
the statute of limitation does not run
against an estate, and there is no
statute to rebut this statement. On
the other hand we have q statute
that allows years in which to bring
an action on contract, and we main
tain that this is a contract.
The Court should not accord any
force to the statute of limitation.
A more liberal standard should pre-
vail where the rights of the Govern
ment are at stake, than that of
private individual.
Mr.. Neumann then stated that
this was not an action on contract,
and was therefore barred by limita-
ton.
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENT said that it
was sometimes advisable to follow
out statute to its logical conclu.
sion. Opposite counsel states that
the law says, that after six months,
goods that are withdrawn from the
Custom House without the payment
of duties, the power of the Govern
ment lapses for the forcible collec-
ton of the same. If that be the
case the Government would be COM
pletely at the mercy of conspira-
tors. AS matter of fact it was
known that these goods were with
drawn at the time, but it could have
been done by conspiracy, and it is
the duty of the court to sustain the
Government in obtaining its dues.
In reply Mr.. Neumann said, the
main stress that the Attorney-Gen-
eral lays on this case is, that the
Court has the power to legislate, but
think that the Court will not at
tempt 10 do anything of the kind, or
try to twist or warp the laws passed
by the Legislature. He then quoted
from statutory laws that "when the
legislature makes no exceptions, the
Court cannot make them" The
statute says, ''all suits arising out of
the violation of the revenue laws
must be brought within a certain
time.
In order to make contract valid
there must be a consideration, and
7 ] would like to have the Attorney.
General show me where the consi.
Ge'a,59n il here what is this suit
4 FOr tAe collection Of duties, taxes,
There II ~ contract between the
defendant aHG tie Ccliccior-G Genera
" Customs 10 pay these duties.
TIC legislature provided that nc
sgit ior duties should be brought
afieg certain time, and if th,
statute prescfibcg that AN actor
sN4il De brought within certain
time, can suit be brought unde
that statute 80 years after!
The failure 10 pay duties, canno
be implied 10 mean that there is
contract. This liability being Su
Depeyis, / do not see how the Cour
can say that the statute says what i
does not say.
/ don't think that the Attorney
General can be very sincere in hi
argument, for in it he clutches at